November 21, 2018, 10:16 am

Limitation Act

Order 7 Rule 11 is not maintainable to reject a plaint admiralty suit

Section-3

31 BLD (HCD) (2011) 340penta marine services Ltd.Vs.Niko Resourses (Bangladesh Ltd.) and Ors. –Order 7 Rule 11 of the code of civil procedure 1908 is not maintainable to reject a plaint admiralty suit, But the court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction to reject plaint if it appears that the suit is barred by law.

14  MLR  (AD)  (2009)  24  Lal Mia (Md) Vs.Md. Anwer Hossain- Provides for dismissal of suit when bared by limitation- Provides for institution of suit by a person challenging deed of transfer of his land by his mother during his minority  within 3 (three) years of his attaining majority or within 12 years of the execution and registration of such deed.Suit instituted beyond the period of limitation is liable to be dismissed on ground of being  barred by limitation.

13  BLC  (2008) 365  Genaral Manager  Bangladesh Vs.Sajeda Begum- It is admitted that the respondents – Badaruddin Ahmed,Moslehuddin Ahmed and Firoja Begum-as plaintiff instituted title suit no 279 of 1970 in the court of the then learned subordinate Judge,1st Court Dhaka.that suit was contested by the defendants and the same was dismissed on contest  on 24-8-1971.Against that judgement and decree the present respondents File First Appeal No. 68 of 1972 before this court and the impugned judgement and decree was set aside and the suit was sent back on remand for fresh trial.After receiving the record by the trial court,both the parties field fresh power.Thereafter, on 24-9-1984 the suit was decreed ex party.The present appellant has field this title suit No. 94 of 1993 (renumbered as Title Suit No.139 of 1994) long after three years and the same is hopelessly barred by limitation.So, the learned trial court rightly dismissed the suit.

10  BCR  320 (AD) – Whether suit was barred by limitation under section of the limitation Act of 1908.Contradictory postures taken by defendant No 1 regards acquisition of title by adverse possession is not ensure to the benefit  of the plaintiff.

45  DLR (AD)  178  Yousuf Vs. Mofajel Ahmed Sowdagar- If a party has taken an appeal or a revision against an interlocutory order whether the decision therein can be challenged when an appeal is taken from the decree-if a party is allowed to challenge an order twice order,certain anomalies may arise,and that is why those order could not be allowed to be challenged, if they had been challenged  in the higher court either in appeal or revision or both.

7 DLR  129 – The right to file a cross-objection does not arise until an appeal is preferred.Once the time for preferring an appeal has expired with the consequence stated in section 3 of the limitation Act,there is an end of the matter,and there can be no question of any appeal or any cross-objection thereafter.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

     More News Of This Category