1989 PLP 3875 (MLD)
MOHIUDDIN ANSARI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF SIDDIQUI — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3875 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Haider Ali Pirzada, J |
| Parties | MOHIUDDIN ANSARI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF SIDDIQUI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3875 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3875 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Haider Ali Pirzada, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3875 (MLD) (MOHIUDDIN ANSARI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF SIDDIQUI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nizam Ahmad for Petitioners.
- S. A. Jalib Chaudhry for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing: 9th and 18th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
O.VII, R.11--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 23, 24 & 25--Dismissal of plaint as time-barred--Limitation--Application for rejection of plaint--Plaint in suit for damages for defamation, filed by respondent/plaintiff against petitioner defendant dismissed on ground that suit was time-barred--Suit, in fact, was for compensation for libel or slander and limitation therefore was prescribed in Arts. 24 and 25 of Limitation Act--Suit thus was barred by time whether it fell within Art. 24 or Art. 25 of Limitation Act--Order of trial Court based on assumption that Art. 23 of Limitation Act was applicable, therefore, suffered from jurisdictional error in the sense that material illegality occurred in exercise of jurisdiction of trial Court in rejecting application for rejection of plaint--Order of trial Court set aside and plaint rejected.
Judgment & Decree
I have heard Mr. Nizam Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the civil revision and Mr. SA. Jalib Chaudhry, Advocate for the respondent. I have perused the plaint and the impugned order. I have carefully considered the agruments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for damages amounting to Rs.1,00,
000. It was a suit for compensation for libel or slander, the limitation applicable to which was that prescribed by Article 24 or Article 25 of Schedule
1. It follows that the suit is barred by time whether it falls within Article 24 or Article 25, Limitation Act and it is not disputed that this is so if these Articles apply. It was however held by the Senior Civil Judge that the suit fell within Article 23, which runs as follows:-- Description of suit Period of Limitation. Time from which period begins to run. "23.- For compensation for a malicious prosecution. One year When the plaintiff is acquitted, or the prosecution is otherwise terminated." When the plaintiff is acquitted, or the prosecution is otherwise terminated." This gives the period of limitation as one year after the judgment of the suit or concluding of the prosecution. I am of the opinion that the suit was barred by time because it was a suit for compensation for libel or slander, the limitation applicable to which was that prescribed by Article 24 or Article 25 of Schedule
1. The respondent averred in his plaint that report was lodged with the police on 6-10-1986 and the suit No. 1417 of 1986 was filed on 8-10-1986 and the suit was filed on 24-11-1987 after lapse of over one year. It is crystal clear that the suit was barred by time. The order of the trial Court dated 7-8-1988 cannot, therefore, possibly be upheld. There is thus apparent jurisdictional error in the order in the sense that the order suffers from patent and material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction of the trial Court in rejecting the application. In the result the Civil revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the plaint is rejected. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. M.Y.H./M-845/K Petition allowed