1988 PLP 991(2) (SCMR)
GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 991(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 991(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 991(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 991(2) (SCMR) (GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Ali Ahmad Tariq, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 16th September, 1987, in I.C.A. No.118 of 1987). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑O. V I , R.7‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908) , Art. 106‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) , Art. 185(3)‑‑Departure from pleadings‑‑Time‑barred suit‑‑Suit for accounts and recovery of possession in respect of dissolved partnership‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question that in the face of a categorical averment in plaint that partnership firm, in respect of which plaintiff was seeking rendition of accounts, stood dissolved in 1971, the suit appears to be plainly barred by limitation under Art.106 of Limitation Act and Court was not competent by inferential conclusion to set up a case different from one pleaded by plaintiff himself.
Judgment & Decree
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑Respondent No.1 has filed Suit No.804 of 1985 against the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 5 on the original side of the Sind High Court which is pending decision. This suit has been filed for accounts and recovery of possession in respect of a partnership firm which according to the averments made in the plaint stood dissolved on 20th February, 1971.
2. As the suit was filed. on 17th November, 1985 and admittedly the prayer for rendition of accounts related to the said dissolved firm, the petitioner moved the Court under Order VII, Rule 11, C . P. C . for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit on the face of the plaint was time‑barred. The learned Judge in Chambers, however, dismissed the application on the ground that there were averments in the plaint (which had to be taken as correct for the purpose of rejection of plaint) to the effect that after the dissolution of the firm the plaintiff was excluded from the partnership business and property, although the defendants were signing income‑tax returns in the name of deceased partner Mst. Mariyam Bai as well as the plaintiff. Taking these pleas as amounting to an averment that the defendants were treating the partnership as in existence, the learned Judge held that the plea of limitation was not applicable on the face of the plaint.
3. Petitioner's Intra‑Court Appeal having been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Sind High Court, he seeks to challenge the judgment dated 16th September, 1987, by this petition for leave to appeal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we feel that in the face of a categorical averment in the plaint that the partnership firm, in respect of which the plaintiff was seeking rendition of accounts A stood dissolved in 1971, the suit appears to be plainly barred by limitation under Article 106 of the Limitation Act and the Court was not competent by inferential conclusion to set up a case different from the one pleaded by the plaintiff himself. This question requires examination and therefore leave is granted. Security for costs Rs.5,
000. M. I./G‑77/S Leave granted.