Mohamadaly Marikar vs Assen Naina Marikar – clr volume 1 page 040

In MohamadalY Marikar v. Assen Naina Marikar, the court addressed the issue of whether an instrument executed as an acknowledgment of debt with a promise to pay constitutes a “bond” under section 6 of the Prescription Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, and thereby whether the cause of action was time-barred under section 7. It was held that the instrument, although referring to terms such as “bond” and “obligation,” did not amount to a statutory “bond,” and the six-year prescription therefore applied, rendering the action prescribed. The principle reaffirmed was that the labeling of a document as a “bond” does not govern its legal effect; the substance and statutory requirements determine its classification. The decision relied on the interpretation of statutory language and the facts of the case,