MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB O — 2024 CLC 524 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB O.VI, R.17---amendment of pleadings---Principle---Where defect can be remedied by allowing amendments, Court should liberally exercise such powers but within the parameters prescribed by O.VI, R.17, C.P.C.---While exercising such powers Court must identify defect and record its satisfaction that the defect is formal and does not go to root of the case. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 524 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB S.5---Limitation---Delay, condoning of---Principle---Provision of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 vests Court with vast discretion of condoning delay in cases where Court is satisfied that application seeking condonation of delay discloses "sufficient cause" by accounting for each day of delay occasioned in filing application, appeal, review or revision. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 524 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB O.XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Withdrawal of suit---Filing of fresh suit---Principle---Limitation, principle of---Applicability---Suit filed earlier by petitioner / plaintiff was withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit---Subsequent suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was rejected by Trial Court as well as by Lower Appellate Court as the same was barred by limitation---Validity---If permission was granted for filing a fresh suit under O. XXIII, R.1, C.P.C., then, pursuant to O. XXIII, R. 2, petitioner / plaintiff was bound by law of limitation in the same manner as if the first suit had not been filed---No fresh cause of action would accrue from the date when such permission was granted by the Court---Language used in S. 3 of Limitation Act, 1908 was mandatory in nature and had imposed duty upon Court to dismiss suit instituted after expiry of period provided unless plaintiff seeked exclusion of time by pleading in plaint one of the grounds provided in Ss. 4 to 25 of Limitation Act, 1908---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB O — 2024 CLC 524 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC