| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2217 2011 SLD 2217 2011 PLD 26 |
Quetta High Court
Civil Revision No. 50 of 2009, decided on 10th January, 2011. DATE of hearing: 3rd December, 2010
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J
Khushnood Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Sadiq Ghuman for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 50 of 2009, decided on 10th January, 2011. DATE of hearing: 3rd December, 2010
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J
Khushnood Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Sadiq Ghuman for
Respondents
CHAKAR KHAN and 3 others
VS
AZAD KHAN and 5 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 96---Single appeal against common /decree passed in two suits consolidated by Trial Court---Maintainability:--Two suits once consolidated would cease to have independent existence, wherein only once /decree could be passed to regulate both suits---Trial Court had framed consolidated issues in both suits relating to same subject-matter---One appeal under S. 96, C.P.C., was allowed from a decree---Common /decree of Trial Court could be challenged through a single appeal, for appeal being a continuation of suit---Such appeal was maintainable---Principles. Allah Bakhsh v. Mst. Shamshad Zohra and others 1985 SCMR 959 rel.) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 151---Consolidation of suits---Scope---Suits involving common questions of law and facts should be consolidated in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting findings---Disposal of such suits through one and same court would be proper---Purpose of consolidation of suits would be to minimize cost of litigation---Two suits once consolidated by an order of court would cease to have independent existence, thus, only one /decree could be passed to regulate both suits. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8 & 42---Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance (XXI of 1978), Ss.33, 44---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9---Suit for declaration and possession---Non-payment of share in agricultural produce by defendant-tenant---Defendant denied relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and claimed ownership over suit land for being in possession thereof for a considerable long period---Defendant's plea that plaintiff could claim possession of suit through Revenue Court, but not civil court---Validity---Had there been any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, then remedy under Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978 could have been filed---Cause of action under S. 42.of Specific Relief Act, 1877 accrued to plaintiff on denial of his title to suit land by defendant --- Such suit was competent in circumstances. (d) Possession--- ----Mere possession over a land for any long period would not entitle a person to become its…
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