1981 PLP 1326 (CLC)
PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISIAN LTD., LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus Mian SHEIH AHMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1326 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISIAN LTD., LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus Mian SHEIH AHMAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1326 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1326 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1326 (CLC) (PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISIAN LTD., LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus Mian SHEIH AHMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqsood Hussain for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th November, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Arts. 163 & 181‑Residuary Article, applicability, of‑‑ Respondents' application under S. 20 of Arbitration Act (X of 1940) dismissed in default‑‑Application for restoration of application also dismissed for non‑prosecutions‑-Subsequently another restoration application filed and such application accepted Period of 30 days prescribed by Art. 163‑Refers to case of getting set aside order of dismissal for default of appearance and envisages restoration of suit dismissed in default at plaintiff's instance but does not cover restoration of application dismissed in default seeking restoration of suit dismissed for non‑prosecution Residuary Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, held, applicable to case and not Art.
163. Ahmad Ali v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies P L D 1971 Kar. 182 rel. ‑‑‑ S. 115‑‑Revision ‑‑Interference in‑Conclusion reached by Civil Judge, not arbitrary or fanciful‑‑Another inference possible from evidence on record ‑Held, interference with impugned order not justifiable on such score alone. N. S. venkatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras P L D 1949 P C 26 and Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another P L D 1970 S C 139 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Arts. 163 & 181‑Residuary Article, applicability, of‑‑ Respondents' application under S. 20 of Arbitration Act (X of 1940) dismissed in default‑‑Application for restoration of application also dismissed for non‑prosecutions‑-Subsequently another restoration application filed and such application accepted Period of 30 days prescribed by Art. 163‑Refers to case of getting set aside order of dismissal for default of appearance and envisages restoration of suit dismissed in default at plaintiff's instance but does not cover restoration of application dismissed in default seeking restoration of suit dismissed for non‑prosecution Residuary Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, held, applicable to case and not Art.
163. Ahmad Ali v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies P L D 1971 Kar. 182 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
‑‑‑ S. 115‑‑Revision ‑‑Interference in‑Conclusion reached by Civil Judge, not arbitrary or fanciful‑‑Another inference possible from evidence on record ‑Held, interference with impugned order not justifiable on such score alone. N. S. venkatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras P L D 1949 P C 26 and Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another P L D 1970 S C 139 ref. Maqsood Hussain for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th November, 1980.