Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 699 2012 SLD 699 = 2012 CLC 1998 = 2013 PLJ 1
Islamabad High Court
Civil Revision No.106 of 2011, decision dated: 30-05-2012
NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J
Date of hearing : 22.5.2012 Petitioner by: Sheikh Khizer ur Rasheed, Advocate.
Respondents by (for : Mr.Khurram Shahzad Chugtai, Advocate respondent No.1) Mr.Nazeer Abbasi Standing Counsel, Iftikhar Ahmed (Allottee) and Qaiser Mehmood, Joint Estate Officer.

Syed KAMRAN HUSSAINvsP.T.C.L. and another

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,R.11,O.XXXIX,R.1,2,S.115

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,R.11,O.XXXIX,R.1,2,S.115

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------0. VII, R.11 & 0.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of '1877), Ss.42, 54 & 55 ---Suit for declaration and injunction---Application for grant of temporary injunction---Rejection of plaint by Trial Court while hearing such application relying upon documents produced in support of written statement by defendant---Appellate Court in appeal upheld such order of Trial Court---Validity---Trial Court had not considered questions as to whether relief claimed and statement made in plaint was barred by law---Trial Court could consider such questions either itself or on application under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Rejection of plaint would not be legal while hearing application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.-High Court set aside impugned orders and remanded case to Trial Court for its afresh scrutiny.2010 YLR 1725 ref.1987 MLD 511; 1995 MLD 332; 2003 PLC (C.S.) 56; 2008 YLR 1405 and 2005 CLC 1740 rel.Sheikh Khizer-ur-Rasheed for Petitioner. Khurram Shahzad Chugtai for Respondent No.1.Nazeer Abbasi Standing Counsel, Iftikhar Ahmed (Allottee) and Qaiser Mehmood, Joint Estate Officer.Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2012.JUDGMENT NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.--- The judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Islamabad dated 4-4-2011 and judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge Islamabad dated 18-12-2011 have been impugned. The trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and learned Appellate Court maintained the same, therefore, the instant writ petition is preferred assailing both the judgments. 2. The petitioner being employee of PTC prior to 1-1-1996 thus his right is protected by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. 3. The petitioner was allowed Quarter No.16-C old No.3 vide allotment letter dated 8-10-2008, wherein he is residing along with his family. The rent of said quarter is regularly being deducted from his salary which is paid by him to the department. The residences in the pool of PTC were allotted to the respective employees who are now enjoying the possession under valid allotments. After the promulgation of Pakistan Telecommunication…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register