Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 3096 2004 SLD 3096 2004 MLD 1382
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1340 of 2001, decided on 1st April, 2004.
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, LDA Plaza and another ers

VS

ALI MUTTQI RIZVI through Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry --Respondent

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8,12

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)           Ss.8, 12  Qanun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114   Estoppel, principle of   Suit for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant authority was decreed by the Trial Court   Appeal filed by the defendant against the said decree was dismissed   Revision petition was preferred by the defendant   Contentions of the defendant were that an agreement was executed between it and the plaintiff, and such agreement contained an arbitration clause, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable without invoking the arbitration clause before filing the same and findings of the Courts below were the result of misreading and non -reading of evidence   Validity   Defendant had not earlier raised the objection regarding the maintainability of the suit in the presence of arbitration clause and had participated in the proceedings without such objection, therefore, the contention of the defendant was of no force   Defendant failed to point out any piece of evidence, which was a result of misreading and non reading by evidence of the Courts below Petition was dismissed in circumstance.   Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. M/s Pak Saaf Dry Cleaner PLD 1981 SC 553 ref.   (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)          O.I, R.10   Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.8, 12   Suit for possession   Necessary and proper party   Trespasser, impleading of   Contention of the defendant was that the plaintiff did not implead the trespasser as defendant in the suit, as the property in question was in the possession of the trespasser, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed   Validity   Trespasser was not a necessary and proper party to resolve the dispute regarding the property, on the basis of which the suit was filed   Both the Courts below had given concurrent findings of facts and it was not denied by the defendant that the person was a trespasser over the property, therefore, he was not a necessary and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492