DARAB SHAH B. DALAL vs MESSRS PREMIER BANK LTD., KARACHI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that granted the petitioner leave to defend a suit filed by the respondent-Bank, subject to the condition of furnishing a Bank Guarantee. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thereby precluding a summary trial under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner argued that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed three-year period. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, must be read in conjunction with Article 158. The Court found that two written acknowledgments by the petitioner effectively extended the limitation period, as the sum became payable within three years of the last acknowledgment. Consequently, the requirements for a summary trial were satisfied. The Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the limitation period was properly calculated based on the statutory acknowledgments, and expressly disapproved of the legal position taken in Fine Textiles Mills, Karachi v. Haji Umar.
- Can a suit be tried summarily under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it is filed beyond the limitation period prescribed in Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does a written acknowledgment of debt extend the limitation period for a summary suit under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Must Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908 be read in conjunction with Article 158 of the same Act when determining the limitation period for a summary suit?
- Article 158, Limitation Act 1908
- Section 19, Limitation Act 1908
- Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.--The High Court has granted to the petitioner leave to defend the suit filed against him by the respondent-Bank on the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee for the suit amount.
2. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal on the contention that as the suit was filed beyond the period of 3 years prescribed in Article 158 of the Limita--tion Act, it could not be tried summarily under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. The plea has been rejected by the High Court and rightly so as the provisions of section 19 of the Act are to be read along with Article 158. There are two acknowledgments in writing by the petitioner. The effect of these acknow--ledgments is that the sum covered by the promissory note became payable within 3 years of the date of Vie last of the two acknowledgments. In that view the requirements of Article 158 are fully satisfied for trial of the suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel, cited Fine Textiles Mills, Karachi v. Haji Umar(PLD 1963 SC 163) which, in our view, does not lay the law correctly. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and others vs ABBAS LAKADWALA and others 2003 CLC 1879