THE LIMITATION ACT (IX OF 1908)
SECTION. 5
O. XXXVII R. 2 & 3 OF C.P.C.
- Suit for recovery based on Promisory Note – delay in filing leave application on the ground that trial court was on leave for nine days due to Winter holidays – held – delay of every single day has to be explained sufficiently, otherwise, the object of summary proceedings will be defeated. Furthermore, only Presiding Officer happened to be on leave while office remained open for filing/institution during this period. Petition for leave is time barred as delay not sufficiently explained.
Muhammad Naeem V. Muhammad Javed Iqbal
2012 CLC 175 (Peshawar).
Section 5
- Old age, poverty, illness without producing medical certificate –each day to be explained-no ground for conditions.
PLD 1990 LAH 174
- Petition for leave to appeal barred by 48 days-petitioner neither a party in High Court, neither present nor represented by counsel in H.C.delay condoned.
1995 R 20
- Plea of limitation like plea of Resjudicata is a plea of law and a pure question of law unless it requires taking of fresh evidence and can be allowed to be raided as a matter of right at any stage of proceedings.
1989 CLC 1405 LAH
- An order without lawful authority. Nullity, without jurisdiction, void , no bar of limitation.
- Without hearing or notice nullity.
1983 CLC 2972 LAH
1986 SCMR 962
- GOVT. not entitled to different treatment than the private litigant.
PLD 1995 SC 396
- Revision not refilled within time granted for removing objections was held to be barred by time.
PLD 1995 SC 399
Section 14 & 15
- Question relating to condonation of delay lies within discretion cannot be interfered unless it agitated and these discretion cannot be interfered unless it has been exercised illegally or arbitrarily.
1995 SCMR 1655
1994 SCMR 690
1080 SCMR 722
Section 28
- Adverse possession- even if sec. 28 was assumed to ne no more valid law still it will not affect part and closed transaction-judgment of F.S.C.will be effective from August 1992 whole transaction in question taken place and cause of action accrued before that period.
1995 MLD 1962
Sec.30, Art.142 & 144.
- Difference between Art.142 & 144 discussed – Art. 142 applies when plaintiff in possession and dispossessed – suit can be filed within 12 years of dispossession. On the other hand Art.144 applies when the possession of the other party becomes adverse to the title of true owner.
PLD 1995 SC (AJ&K) 41.
Section 57
- Sect. 126 Contract Act. where in terms of guarantee, cause against defendant was to have arisen two days after notice and no notice was served – filing of suit would be deemed to be notice.
PLD 1986 Kar. 464 H.N. (b)
1982 CLC 1001
1981 CLC 89 Ref.
VOID ORDER
- Limitation – void order even if affirmed in appeal or revision remains a void order, hence, no limitation.
1995 CLC 1816 (Lah).
Art. 163.
- Limitation for setting aside order of dismissal of suit for default under O-9 R-4 CPC, is ninety days not 30 days amendment dated 24.06.1992.
1995 MLD 1611
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
- Failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt will not be termed as malicious prosecution – prosecution could not be malicious because it was inspired by anger.
1995 CLC 1134 (Kar).
SECTION 28-AS TO ADVERSE POSESSION
- Declared to be against the injunction of Islam.
1991 SCMR 2063
- Maqbool Ahmad’s case (1991 SCMR 2063)
- Prospective in its operation, prior proceedings were required to continued in accordance with law for the time being in force.
PLD 1993 LAH 566