Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Limitation involves mixed question of fact and law; Constitutional Petition dismissed.
مدتِ معینہ کا سوال حقائق اور قانون کا مشترکہ مسئلہ قرار، بدنیتی پر مبنی مقدمے میں آئینی درخواست مسترد
تفصیلی آرٹیکل:
نتیجہ:
Must read Judgement
2025 C L C 567
[Sindh]
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF RAJA ---Petitioner
Versus
NOUREEN NAZ and others ---Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.D-5509 of 2023, decided on 22nd May, 2024.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint, application for---Limitation---Plea of the defendant was that suit for damages for malicious prosecution filed by the plaintiff was time-barred---Trial Court dismissed second application of the defendant filed under R. 11 of O. VII, C.P.C., with costs, which judgment was maintained by the District Court---Validity---Issue of limitation involves a mixed question of fact and law which requires evidence of parties---Additionally, present suit should be contested on its merits and question of maintainability is to be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence---Contents and nature of the suit-in-question are unmistakable, which seeks damages for malicious prosecution---Petitioner's/defendant's persistent denial and stubborn insistence to the contrary (which has been demonstrated through vexatious and frivolous repeated application) will not alter this reality---Impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below warrant no intervention---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint, application for---Factual controversy---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Plea of the defendant was that suit for damages for malicious prosecution filed by the plaintiff was time-barred---Trial Court dismissed second application of the defendant filed under R. 11 of O. VII, C.P.C., with costs, which judgment was maintained by the District Court---Validity---Trial Court is primarily responsible for assessing facts and High Court possesses the authority under Art. 199 of the Constitution to intervene in a limited scope, which encompasses rectifying jurisdictional errors and constitutional infringements---However, such circumstances were not found to be applicable in the present case---Impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below warrant no intervention---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Petitioner in person.
No comments:
Post a Comment