Rejection of such plaint
Rejection of such plaint legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Application for rejection of plaint on ground that the plaintiff, being a sole proprietorship, ought to have instituted proceedings in his personal name and not in the trading name of the proprietorship
Held, that description of a plaintiff given in the title of the plaint must be carefully examined, and if such examination revealed, or could reasonably be regarded as revealing the true identity of the party (that is the proprietor); then the suit must be held to have been brought in the name of the latter
However, if despite such examination, the true identity of plaintiff could not be determined, then it could be said that the suit had been brought by an entity that had no existence in the eye of the law (that is the proprietary concern) and it may be that such suit was to be dismissed or the plaint rejected
In the present case, it was evident from the title of the plaint that the person filing the suit was the sole proprietor whose identity was substantially disclosed and no vested right could be said to have been accrued to the defendant therefore the present case was one of bona fide mis-description to which no limitation could apply and the error could be corrected under S.153, C.P.C.
Plaint therefore, could not be rejected
Application was dismissed, in circumstances.
Application for rejection of plaint on ground that the plaintiff, being a sole proprietorship, ought to have instituted proceedings in his personal name and not in the trading name of the proprietorship
Held, that description of a plaintiff given in the title of the plaint must be carefully examined, and if such examination revealed, or could reasonably be regarded as revealing the true identity of the party (that is the proprietor); then the suit must be held to have been brought in the name of the latter
However, if despite such examination, the true identity of plaintiff could not be determined, then it could be said that the suit had been brought by an entity that had no existence in the eye of the law (that is the proprietary concern) and it may be that such suit was to be dismissed or the plaint rejected
In the present case, it was evident from the title of the plaint that the person filing the suit was the sole proprietor whose identity was substantially disclosed and no vested right could be said to have been accrued to the defendant therefore the present case was one of bona fide mis-description to which no limitation could apply and the error could be corrected under S.153, C.P.C.
Plaint therefore, could not be rejected
Application was dismissed, in circumstances.
"Rejection of such plaint", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124952859
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Rejection of such plaint"
P L D 1995 Karachi 214 n
MUHAMMAD ANWAR ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus Messrs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. LTD.
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Res judicata‑.‑‑Principles of res judicata as'contained in S.il, C.P.C. were not exhaustive but principles of constructive res judicata would be applicable to cases where provisions of C.P.C. have not specifically been made applicable. p. 217 B2012 C L C 1028
Mrs. GULSHAN AFROZE through Legal Heirs and 9 others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD JAMAL and 4 others — Respondents
Court: SindhP L D 2013 Peshawar 71
Senator Haji GHULAM ALI and another — Petitioners Versus KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA OLYMPIC ASSOCATION through President and 4 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2015 C L D 89
Messrs U.K. INTERNATIONAL, through Sole Proprietor — Plaintiff Versus TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN — Defendant
Court: SindhP L D 2015 Sindh 89
Messrs U.K. INTERNATIONAL, through Sole Proprietor — Plaintiff Versus TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN — Defendant
Court: High Court1985 C L C 671
Begum MASOODA ABDUL HAQUE-Appellant Versus Messrs SHAN-E-MUSTAFA PRODUCTION and another — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1981 Lahore 153
MAHMUD AHMAD BUTT AND ANoTlmit‑Petitioners Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Respondents
Court: 0. VII, r. 11(a)‑Plaint‑Rejection of‑Word "it" appearing in clause (a) of r. l I‑Refers to word "plaint" employed in opening of rule‑Non‑occurrence of word "plaint" in cl. (a)‑Does not mean that Court can look into material other than contents of plaint for rejecting plaint for non‑disclosure of cause of action.‑Interpretation of statutes‑Plaint.2010 Y L R 1786
Syed LAILA — Petitioner Versus Raja ASGHAR HUSSAIN and 8 others — Respondents
Court: Gilgit2013 Y L R 85
MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD MANZOOR and 40 others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)2009 C L C 790
PAK CHINA CONSTRUCTIONS AND MATERIAL COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. (PCCMC) through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus CHINA LIAONING INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATON (GROUP) CORPORATION LTD. (CLIC) through Project Manager and Director and another — Respondents
Court: Northern Areas Chief Court