Suit

Plaintiff assailed incorporation certificate issued to defendant under S. 42 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and was also aggrieved of cancellation of registration under S. 7 of Trade Organization Act, 2013

Validity

Plaintiff was timely informed by the authority that defendant had applied for issuance of a license under the provisions of Trade Organization Act, 2013 and Rules

Application of defendant was properly processed, publication was made and after observing all codal formalities and deposit of requisite fee the license was duly issued to defendant in accordance with law and rules, where neither in Trade Organization Act, 2013 nor in Trade Organization Rules, 2013 availability of name from Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was a pre-requisite for obtaining license of trade organizations

Remedy under the provisions of Trade Organization Act, 2013 provided to aggrieved person for redressal of his grievance was available but plaintiff failed to avail available remedy for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law

High Court declined to interfere in registration of trade organization

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

If litigation has an appropriate remedy before a special court/forum then resort to institution of a civil suit is not permissible.

When any action is brought for enforcement of rights or obligations of a citizen the same are called as the suit of civil nature

Parties were to be facilitated to secure their rights and Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides an elaborate mechanism and tools to individuals as well as to Courts for determination of real controversy.

Question as to whether the cause of action/remedy entailing the maximum period of limitation should necessarily and mandatorily be resorted to and should cover the question of limitation for the purposes of the whole suit, regardless of whether the suit was barred by time for other cause(s) of action or relief

To ascertain the application of the correct Article from the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, the frame of the suit should be considered, adverted and adhered to

Test for determining the period of limitation was to see the true effect of the suit and not its formal or verbal description

Legal aspect (of the suit) should be examined by taking into consideration the facts of each case and particularly the frame and object of the suit, taking inter alia further into account the contents of the plaint itself

Point to be determined was what main relief was being sought by the plaintiff and whether the other remedies asked for (which may be carrying longer period of limitation) were ancillary, dependent and consequential to the main relief

Where the main/basic/foundational relief being sought was time barred and the bar was not surmounted by the plaintiff, the incidental and consequential relief had to go away along with it and the suit was liable to be dismissed on account of being time barred.

Section 4 of Limitation Act, 1908 giving litigant right to institute such suit/appeal on the day when the court re-opens, despite period of limitation having expired during the closure of court

Litigant compelled to file suit/appeal during summer vacations for enabling him to seek some interim relief, which was imperative and of utmost expediency to prevent irreparable and irreversible loss and injury

Section 4 of Limitation Act, 1908 gave such a litigant a vested right to file the suit/appeal on the day of the re-opening of the court, but if the litigant sought some urgent relief during the closure of court, he could not be expected to sit idle (till the re-opening of the court) and watch irreparable, colossal and irretrievable loss being caused to him, and refrain from exercising his right of filing suit/appeal for the purpose of obtaining interim relief

Benefit of S.4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would also automatically extend to such a litigant, and the suit/appeal filed during the closure of courts to obtain urgent interim relief, would be deemed to have been filed on the date of re-opening of the court.

Primary duty of Trial Court would be to see that whether plaintiff's claim was within limitation even in absence of any objection of opposite party.

It is primary duty of plaintiff to substantiate averments of plaint through cogent evidence, thereafter defendant would adduce evidence in rebuttal.

Burden always lay upon the plaintiff to establish among other things that suit was well within time, if the plaintiffs would fail to establish that the suit was within time, he could not be granted decree same being barred by time.

Held, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of suit, it is not the title or the caption thereto, which must be restrictively seen, rather the whole of the plaint must be looked into and the substance, rather than the form should be examined.

Evidence produced in an incompetent suit would be of no legal validity.

Filing of suit from date of knowledge is always presumed to be in time unless otherwise proved.

Self-­serving statement of defendant with admission in cross-examination of facts mentioned in plaint, was not enough to dismiss the suit of plaintiff.

Plaintiff has to succeed at the strength of his own evidence and if case is not made out from his evidence, the suit must fail.

Suit can be filed where wrong was committed or part of cause of action accrued.

Plaintiff has to prove his case on its own strength by producing evidence and not to seek decree on the weaknesses of opposite party / defendant is the suit.

Mere placing on record certified copies of such proceedings, and decision of Court would not be sufficient to discharge the onus about institution of such suit and proceedings conducted therein

Such fact could be ascertained by examining the party allegedly to have filed earlier suit, the witness, who had appeared and made statement therein and the Advocate, who had appeared on their behalf and had identified them.

Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and it is for him to prove his case.

Where there was preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit, same should have been decided before any other question involved in the matter.

Court is duty bound to look into on its own whether the suit is competent or not.

Filing of a suit or proceedings under a wrong provision of law does not affect the maintainability of a suit and what has to be seen is whether the suit falls within the scheme of the law.

Where suit was not dismissed on mere procedural technicalities but on account of hard facts and changed circumstances which did not concern matter of procedure but substantial rights of parties, no grievance could be raised against the same.

Plaintiff in a suit is to succeed on the strength of his own case and not because of the weakness of the defendant's plea.

-Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case.

Suit Suit should not be dismissed merely on basis of technicalities and formal defects should be allowed to be removed by parties.

Where a plaintiff claimed a relief larger than that to which he was found to be entitled, Court ought to grant relief to which he was so found entitled and not to dismiss suit.

Suit Plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness in the case of defendant.

Piecemeal trial of a controversy, held, would not serve interest of parties nor cause of justice.

S. 12(2)-Suit, challenging decree obtained on basis of fraud and collusion, instituted much before amendment of S. 12(2)-Amendment of S. 12(2) brought during pendency of suit, held, has no application Suit if dismissed for seeking remedy by filing application under S. 12(2) same would result unnecessary expenses and inconvenience to both parties.-[Interpretation of statutes].

Suit filed more than ten years ago but plaintiff not yet completing evidence in trial Court-Held, such delay was scandalous District Judge advised to decide suit within six months.

Respondent obtaining decree by fraud-Remedy for setting aside same, held, lies in filing a suit.

Order of Court without jurisdiction, manifestly illegal, and suffering from material irregularity-Such order, held, cannot be maintained on ground of dilatory tactics having been adopted by party adversely affected.

Administrative suit-Muhammadan (Shia) Law-Succession-No parent, or lineal descendant or full brother, or father's father alive-Entire estate left by deceased, a Shia Muslim-Devolves upon her sister.- [Muhammadan Law-Succession].

O. VII, r. 1 & O. VI, r. 2-Suit for partition-Frame of suit purely that of a partition suit and expressly reflected so from prayer clause of plaint-Even cause of action disclosed in plaint not speaking of any dispute or difficulty having arisen with regard to realization of property or payment of debts or legacies of deceased

Mere reference in body of plaint without its being relevant to relief sought not determinative of nature of suit as a whole-Contention that reference in a paragraph of plaint to "amicable division of assets and liabilities" left by deceased clearly spelt out suit to be in nature of a suit for administration of deceased's assets -Held : Every allegation in plaint-Not part of cause of action unless plaintiff bound to prove same to obtain judgment-Looking to relief sought

All issues arising out of pleadings-Need not be determined-Court will determine only such allegations in pleadings as are necessary in relation to relief claimed.

-Cause of action-Entire foundation of cause of action found to be false-Suit cannot succeed in part on such cause of action even as regards a defendant admitting plaintiff's claim. M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

-Two rival suits for pre-emption, one by K and another by W, consolidated and heard together-Suit of K decreed-Fact of K being heir of vendor and having a superior right of pre-emption not contested-In appeal by W, the first appellate Court non-suited K on ground of collusion and waiver-Held, before a pre-emption suit could be defeated on ground of waiver arid collusion, strictest evidence necessary to prove that object of plaintiff was to secure land for vendee-Mere desire of plaintiff (having superior right of pre-emption) to annoy and defeat rival pre-emptor, not sufficient for non-suiting him-Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), S. 28.

(a) Suit (civil)-Person having repudiated tenancy of agricultural land and set up title in himself-Matter amenable to civil Court's jurisdiction.

Suit-Defendant should have opportunity of rebutting case sought to be made out-Decree cannot be granted against party not afforded such opportunity.

Parties to suit-Suit against C and D -Serious allegations of mala fide made in plaint against T and B-Held, T and B were at least proper parties if not necessary parties to suit and ought to have been impleaded as defendants-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 3.

Suit-Witness, examination of-Mere fact that hajira of witnesses filed-Not sufficient for establishing that parties were willing and ready to examine witnesses and that the Court refused.

Suit Three suits, X, Y & Z, involving common issues, heard analogously and disposed of by one judgment-Appeal preferred against decree in suit X but no appeal filed in suits Y and Fresh suit (on basis of appellate decision in suit X) in respect of lands which were subject-matter of suits Y and Z not maintainable after decrees in suits Y and Z had become final.

Rights of parties to suit-Must be adjudicated on basis of law prevailing at date of suit.

Suit Suit - Valuation - Determination of nature of suit-Substance of plaint rather than form to be looked into for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. It is well established that for determining the nature of a suit it is the substance of the plaint rather than the form in which the relief is couched which is to be looked into for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.

Suit-Limitation-Plea of, may be taken for first time even at appellate stage provided matter can be decided on facts admitted or patent on record and provided plea if raised in trial Court could not have been made by plea of fact.

Plaintiff must succeed on strength of his own and not on weakness of respondents' evidence.

Non-joinder of necessary party-No objection taken either in Court below or before Supreme Court-Court, held, entitled under provisions of O. 1, r. 9, C. P. C. to "deal with matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it"-Order of warabandi by Divisional Canal Officer under Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 impugned

Practice has grown up in West Pakistan not to join him as party in suit filed to challenge his order-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 9-Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873).

Suit -Corporation-Absence of indication in statute as to how statutory body to be sued-Suit must be filed according to best mode which exigency of situation demands or requires.

S. I & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10-Suit-Mere misdescription of defendant-Court competent to make necessary correction regardless of question of limitation-Plaint in suit as originally filed under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 not containing names of all beneficiaries of deceased-Addition, subsequently, of left-out beneficiaries, by amendment allowed after period of limitation prescribed for suit Does not render suit time-barred.

Suit Suit-Place of suing-Absence of statutory provisions fixing place and forum of suing-Plaintiff can sue defendant in Court within whose jurisdiction defendant resides or carries on business-Jurisdiction of Courts in Pakistan, in absence of any variance with legislative enactments, must be ascertained on Common Law principles.

Suit Suit-Nature of-Cannot depend upon decree actually made or result of suit