| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1401 2014 SLD 1401 2014 YLR 444 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.982 of 2008 and C.M.A. No.9789 of 2012, decision dated: 21st October, 2013, hearing DATE : 30-09-2012
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, J
Shaikh Jawed Mir and Zulfiqar Haider Shah, for the Plaintiff. Asim Iqbal for the Defendants
Suit No.982 of 2008 and C.M.A. No.9789 of 2012, decision dated: 21st October, 2013, hearing DATE : 30-09-2012
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, J
Shaikh Jawed Mir and Zulfiqar Haider Shah, for the Plaintiff. Asim Iqbal for the Defendants
MUHAMMAD ALI SHAIKH-----Plaintiff
VS
SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD. through Managing Director and 3 others----Defendants
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. VII, R. 11 & O. I, R. 3---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Contention of defendants was that suit could only be filed against natural or legal person and not against an official title or designation and plaint could not be rejected in parts or piecemeal---Provision of Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. was procedural in nature and power under said provision had to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances---Such power should be exercised where court would come to the conclusion that even if all the allegations were proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief---Court had only to see as to whether any cause of action had been disclosed and it was immaterial to see whether plaintiff would be able to prove the case or not which could not be decided without framing of issues and recording of evidence---Defendant/authorities issued demand notice for recovery of amount on behalf of company and company had been arrayed as defendants with official designations which was right and proper cause of action---Case of plaintiff was against the company and not against its officials---Plaintiff had acted in correct and proper manner---Party could not be denied relief on the grounds of misjoinder or non-joinder---Objection of joinder, mis-joinder or non-joinder must be taken at the earliest, failing which the same should be deemed to have been waived---Court had power to add or strike out the parties---Cases/issues must not be decided on technicalities---Plaintiff could be directed to file amended title with proper name and designation if so advised---Proper course would be to provide opportunity to the plaintiff to correct the technical defect if any and not to dismiss or reject the plaint on such issue---Case of plaintiff against the officials of the company was not in their private capacity but was in their official capacity---Officials of company had acted under the authority of the company and they were immune from any liability---Plaintiff could maintain his suit against the company and plaint could not be rejected---Application was dismissed in circumstances.…
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