1987 PLP 2998 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2998 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1885) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2998 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1885) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2998 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Naimuddin and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2998 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.1--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 6--Delay in filing suit- Condonation of--Suit under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 admittedly was instituted by plaintiff beyond period of one year from occurrence of accident--Delay in filing suit was sought to be condoned by plaintiff on ground that he being father of deceased fell ill and became insane due to shock of news of death of his son--Plea of plaintiff having not been supported by any medical evidence, delay, held, could not be condoned merely on assertion of plaintiff in that respect--Plaint was rightly rejected in circumstances. S.S. Hamid for the Appellant.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, J.--This appeal is from the judgment dated 29-10-1984, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.467 of 1982, whereby he rejected the plaint as being barred by time. The suit was under Fatal Accident Act in respect of the death of the son of the appellant in an accident which took place on 3-3-1981. But the suit was filed on 7-8-1982, beyond a period of one year therefore, it was clearly time-barred. However, two applications were made one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the other under 6 of the Limitation Act. So far as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, learned Single Judge after perusing two affidavits filed in support of the applications came to the conclusion that the statements made therein are not only inconsistent and contrary to each other but they are not supported by any medical evidence in support of the plea that the appellant became insane. The learned Single Judge observed that mere fact that due to the shock of the news of the death of his son the appellant fell ill is not enough to enlarge time under Section 6 of the Limitation Act for institution of the proceedings in Court. We find that the observation of the learned Single Judge are correct and do not call for any interference. The suit was clearly time-bared and therefore, the plaint was rightly rejected. Consequently was dismissed this appeal in limine. H. B. T. /M-339/K Appeal dismissed.