2017 PLP 1695 (CLC)
Mst. SAIMA ZAMEER — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1695 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SAIMA ZAMEER — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1695 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1695 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1695 (CLC) (Mst. SAIMA ZAMEER — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3 & Form 4 of Appendix B
General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.9
Punjab General Clauses Act (VI of 1956), S.8
Application for leave to appear and defend the suit
Commencement and termination of time
Scope
Trial Court dismissed application for leave to appear and defend the suit being time barred
Service of summons in summary suit was to be effected through summons available in the Appendix 'B' of Form IV, C.P.C.
Defendant had to obtain leave to appear and defend the suit 'within 10 days from the service'
Service of defendant was effected on 15-04-2011 therefore, within 10 days would mean excluding 15-04-2011
Last date for obtaining leave to appear and defend was 25-04-2011
Application for leave to appear and defend the suit had been filed within prescribed period of limitation
Trial Court had fell in error while holding that application for leave to appear and defend the suit was time barred
Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside
Trial Court was directed to decide the application for leave to appear and defend the suit afresh on merits in accordance with law
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.
Through this appeal the appellant, who is defendant in a suit for recovery filed under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. on the basis of cheque, has challenged the order dated 21.06.2011, whereby an application for leave to defend the suit has been dismissed on the ground that same has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation.
2. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent on 01.03.2016 despite the fact that previously he was represented through counsel, therefore, vide order dated 01.03.2016 notice was issued to the respondent as well as his counsel, which has been served upon them. No one is present on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte.
3. The service of summons was effected upon the appellant-defendant on 15.04.2011, who appeared in the court through counsel on 16.04.2011 and filed an application for leave to defend the suit on 25.04.2011. Learned trial court holding that the application has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the application has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Learned trial court fell in error while holding that the application has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order as well as the record.
6. The service of summons in summary suit is effected through summons available in the Appendix 'B' of Form IV of the C.P.C. It is mentioned that "within 10 days from the service" the defendant has to obtain leave to appear and defend the suit. As the service was effected on 15.04.2011, therefore, within 10 days means excluding 15.04.2011 and the last date for obtaining the leave to appear and defend was 25.04.2011, therefore, the application for leave to appear and defend the suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. To strengthen this legal position it is necessary to reproduce the language of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as Section 8 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956, respectively, as follows:- "
9. Commencement and termination of time.
(1) In any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from", and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "to". (2) This section applies also to all [Central Acts] made after the third day of January, 1868, and to all Regulation made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887." "
8. Commencement and termination of time.-- In any West Pakistan Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time to use the word "from" and for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time to use the word "to". It is clear that within 10 days from the service means that day of service will be excluded from computing the period of 10 days, therefore, the time provided for filing an application for leave to appear and defend the suit was till 25.04.2011 when the day of service i.e. 15.04.2011 is excluded from computing the period of 10 days.
7. Learned trial court fell in error while holding the same to be after the prescribed period of limitation. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.06.2011 is set aside. The appellant/defendant to appear before the trial court on 20.04.2016 and the learned trial court shall decide the application for leave to appear and defend the suit afresh on merits in accordance with law. ZC/S-39/L Appeal allowed.