PLD 1972

P L D 1972 Karachi 57 (PLP)

MESSRS HAROON TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Appellant‑Defendant Versus ALLAH DITTA — Respondent‑Plaintiff

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
4th August 1970
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1972 Karachi 57 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties MESSRS HAROON TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Appellant‑Defendant Versus ALLAH DITTA — Respondent‑Plaintiff
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1972 Karachi 57 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1972 Karachi 57 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1972 Karachi 57 (PLP) (MESSRS HAROON TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Appellant‑Defendant Versus ALLAH DITTA — Respondent‑Plaintiff). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 14‑Claire in torts ‑Limita tion‑Condonation of delay‑‑Filing of application with Factory Inspector for a claim in tort‑Can by no stretch of argument be said to be a bona fide proceeding fit for condonation of delay under S. 14.

Judgment & Decree

Second Appeal No. 291 of 1969, decided on 4th August 1970.

S. 14‑Claire in torts ‑Limita tion‑Condonation of delay‑‑Filing of application with Factory Inspector for a claim in tort‑Can by no stretch of argument be said to be a bona fide proceeding fit for condonation of delay under S. 14. We are clearly of the opinion that the two Courts below clearly erred is law in condoning the delay arid holding the suit to tie in time. On this view of the case, we feel it unnecessary to decide the other issues, and allow this appeal, and in result set aside the judgment and decree of bath the Courts below. Since the learned Counsel for tae appellant stated that he would not like to burden the respondent, who is a workman, with the costs of these proceedings, we make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.