P L D 1981 Karachi 473 (PLP)
ABUL KALAM‑Plaintiff Versus BASHIR AHAMD RANA AND ANOTHER‑Defendants
| Citation | P L D 1981 Karachi 473 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑0. IX, r. 9 as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980) and with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 Amendment brought about by Ordinance X of 1980‑‑Held, neither a procedural nor retrospective in operation.‑‑Interpretation of statutes. |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | ABUL KALAM‑Plaintiff Versus BASHIR AHAMD RANA AND ANOTHER‑Defendants |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1981 Karachi 473 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1981 Karachi 473 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑0. IX, r. 9 as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980) and with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 Amendment brought about by Ordinance X of 1980‑‑Held, neither a procedural nor retrospective in operation.‑‑Interpretation of statutes. bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1981 Karachi 473 (PLP) (ABUL KALAM‑Plaintiff Versus BASHIR AHAMD RANA AND ANOTHER‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑
0. IX, r. 9 [as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980)] and with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 Amendment brought about by Ordinance X of 1980‑‑Held, neither a procedural nor retrospective in operation.‑‑[Interpretation of statutes]. (b) Interpretation of Statutes
‑ ‑‑‑ Retrospective operation of amendment in law‑Fact that such amendment was procedural in nature‑Does not mean that past and closed transactions should be reopened and decided in accordance with amended law‑‑‑[Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 1969 Indian Edn., p. 222 held not applicable] Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 1969 Indian Edn., p. 222 held not applicable. Ashfaq Hussain for Plaintiff. Malik M. Aslam for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
By this application the plaintiff is seeking restoration of the suit which was dismissed for non‑prosecution/default on 5‑11‑1979. It is not disputed before me that the suit was fixed for evidence on 5‑11‑1979, when it was dismissed on account of absence of plaintiff and his Advocate. The present application for restoration was made on 7‑1‑1980, which is admittedly beyond the period of 30 days prescribed for making such an application. The application is supported by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the affidavit of the same date. It is, however, not disputed before me that on the date the application for the restoration of suit was made, section 5 was not applicable to Order IX, rule 9, C. P. C. by an amendment brought about in C. P. C. on 26th March, 1980 by Ordinance X of 1980. It is contended by Mr. Ashfaq Hussain, the learned counsel for the plaintiff that this amendment made on 26th March, 1980 will also be applicable to the present case as on that date the application for restoration of suit was pending in the Court. The basis for this argument is that the amendments brought about by Ordinance X of 1980 in the Code of Civil Procedure are procedural in nature and are, therefore, retrospective in A operation. I am unable to accept this contention. . The period of limitation or filing application under Order IX, rule 9 in this case admittedly expired on 4‑12‑1979. Even if I accept the contention of the learned counsel the amendments introduced by Ordinance X of 1980 are purely procedural in nature, even then it does not mean that the past and closed transaction should be reopened and decided in accordance with the amended law. No such interpretation arises on the language of the amending Ordinance. Mr. Ashfaq Hussain has referred a passage from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes appearing at page 222 of 1969 Indian Edn. of the book to contend that the amendments in procedural law are generally operative retrospectively, but this passage is of hardly any assistance to the learned counsel. I accordingly dismiss this application as time barred. There will be no order as to costs. S. Q. Application dismissed.