Sivapalananthan vs Raj Gopal – sllr 2005 volume 1 page 162

The case between Sivapalanathan (Plaintiff) and Raj Gopal (Defendant) addressed whether an action based on two cheques was barred by prescription under the Prescription Ordinance, No. 22 of 1871, and whether a claim based on unjust enrichment could be maintained within summary procedure on liquid claims. It was held that the claims on the cheques were prescribed since the action was initiated after the statutory limitation period had lapsed. The principle reaffirmed is that when the instrument sued upon is prescribed, a sustainable defence is established, warranting that a defendant may appear and defend without furnishing security. This decision relied on interpretations of Sections 705(2) and 706 of the Civil Procedure Code and relevant precedent, emphasizing that prescribed claims do no