| Case ID |
14dd343b-7f02-41f7-b7fe-8e7f7b2a36ad |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
First Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2012 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 16, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 24, 2014 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court set aside the order and decree passed by the trial court regarding the summary suit filed by Anwar Ahmed Khan Yousufzai. The court emphasized that the trial court failed to properly consider the claims and evidence presented by the appellant. The decision highlighted that the suit concerning the cheque was time-barred; however, the claims based on promissory notes were valid and within the limitation period. The court directed that the entire suit should be adjudicated on its merits, taking into account the relevant evidence and documentation without superficial dismissal. Hence, the trial court was instructed to reassess the claims collectively, respecting the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908. |
| Summary |
In the case of Anwar Ahmed Khan Yousufzai vs. Muhammad Ali Haleem and others, the Sindh High Court addressed significant issues surrounding the Limitation Act and the Civil Procedure Code concerning a summary suit for recovery of loans. The appellant, Anwar Ahmed Khan Yousufzai, had lent substantial sums to the respondents, which were documented through cheques and promissory notes. The trial court had dismissed the case without adequately examining the evidence, leading to an appeal. The High Court ruled that while the cheque claim was indeed time-barred, the claims grounded in promissory notes were timely and valid. The ruling stressed the importance of thorough judicial examination of all claims in cases where multiple causes of action exist, ensuring that no valid claims are dismissed merely due to the time limitation of others. The court's decision reinforces the principle that a suit cannot be rejected in part if any of the claims are maintainable, thus protecting the rights of the plaintiff to seek recovery of debts. This case is pivotal for understanding procedural nuances in civil cases involving negotiable instruments and the implications of the Limitation Act. Keywords such as 'civil procedure', 'summary suit', 'limitation act', and 'negotiable instruments' are essential for SEO optimization in legal contexts. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Mustafa Lakhani for Appellant,
Abdul Qayum Khan for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
ANWAR AHMED KHAN YOUSUFZAI THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD ALI HALEEM AND 3 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 2257 = 2016 YLR 1008
|
| Other Citations |
United Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Bilquees Begum and 3 others 1988 CLC 1613,
Valueg Old Ltd. and 2 others v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1999 Kar. 1,
Muhammad Ashraf v. Habib Bank Ltd. 2005 CLD 1367,
Phool Badshah v. ADBP 2012 SCMR 1688
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
|
| Sections |
Order XXXVII, Rules 1 & 2,
Section 5,
Article 76
|