KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD. (UNITED CHEMICALS), LAHORE vs ABDUL MAJID
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan in civil revision, which upheld the trial court's decision that an indigent worker's suit for damages for employment injuries was not barred by limitation. The respondent sought permission to sue in forma pauperis, which the petitioner opposed on the ground of limitation. The High Court concluded that the claim was governed by Article 36 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act and held that an application to sue as a pauper should not be rejected when the question of limitation is complicated or not free from doubt. The Supreme Court heard the petitioner's counsel and affirmed the High Court's view as unexceptionable, holding that no serious question of law arose at this stage. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal.
- Whether an application to sue in forma pauperis should be rejected when the question of limitation is complicated or not free from doubt?
- Does a revision lie under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order holding that a cause of action is not barred by limitation in a pauper application?
- Section 115, Civil Procedure Code 1908
- Article 36, Limitation Act 1908
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan in a revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, refusing to interfere with an order of the trial Court, in a pauper application holding that the cause of action sought to be enforced in the plaint filed by the respondent was not barred by limitation.
2. The respondent who was a worker under the petitioner, claimed damages for injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment in the Caustic Soda Solidification Plant of the petitioner. Being a poor worker he sought permission of the Court to sue in forma pauperis but the petitioner raised an objection to the effect that the permission should not be granted, because, the claim itself had become barred by limitation.
3. The trial Court took the view that the cause of action was not barred.
4. Against this a revision was filed in the High Court. The High Court, after hearing Mr. Ghias Muhammad as amicus curiae came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent was not barred as it was governed by Article 36 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. In any event, the High Court took the view that it was an established law that the application to sue in forma pauperis was not to be rejected if the question of limitation was a complicated one.
5. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing in support of this petition, we have come to the conclusion that at this stage no serious question of law arises, for, the learned Judge of the High Court was right in holding that an application to sue in forma pauperis should not be rejected if the question of limitation is not free from doubt. This view appears to be unexceptionable.
6. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.