| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1620 2017 SLD 1620 2017 PLD 528 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 970 of 2003, decision Date : 30-12-2016, heard on:25 2016.
SYED SAEEDUDDIN NASIR, JUSTICE
Ms. Benysh Qureshi for Plaintiff.Qazi Zia Zahid for Defendants.
Suit No. 970 of 2003, decision Date : 30-12-2016, heard on:25 2016.
SYED SAEEDUDDIN NASIR, JUSTICE
Ms. Benysh Qureshi for Plaintiff.Qazi Zia Zahid for Defendants.
BISHOP EJAZ INAYATVSRT. REV. ALEXANDER JOHN MALIK AND 7 OTHERS
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- --42---.---Suit for declaration---.---Scope---.---Provisions of S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, are attracted only to a case in which plaintiff approaches Court for safeguard of his right to legal character or property---.--- Where right to his own legal character or property is not involved, suit is not maintainable. Miss. Roohi Shaikh v. Board of Secondary Education, Karachi and 2 others 1996 MLD 1190; Abdur Rahman Mobashir and 3 others v. Syed Amir Ali Shah Bokhari and 4 others PLD 1978 Lah. 113; Shafqatullah Qadri v. University of Karachi through Vice Chancellor PLD 1954 Sindh 107; Burmah Eastern Limited v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others PLD 1967 Dacca 190; Al-Haj Abdur Rehman Bhuya and others v. The Commissioners of Narayanganj Municipality and others PLD 1959 Dacca 5; Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, N.-W.F.P. and Bahawalpur v. Mrs. E.V. Miller and others DLR 1959 Dacca 430; Ilam Din v. Hassan Din PLD 2006 Lah. 121; M.A. Naseer v. Chairman Pakistan Eastern Railway PLD 1965 SC 83 and Sheoparsan v. Ramandand AIR 1960 PC 78 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)---.--- ---.----Ss. 42 & 54---.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.V11, R.11---.---Suit for declaration and injunction---.---Plaint, rejection of-Religious rights-Plaintiff assailed elections of church-Validity-Functioning and elections of Synod of Church of Pakistan which was a religious body of Roman Catholic Christians, and for election of which a specific procedure was prescribed in Constitution of Church of Pakistan, could not be called in question before Civil Court---.---No Court was empowered to deal with question purely ecclesiastical, whether arising in Christian or any other religious community-With such matters, Civil Court had nothing to do, until and unless they resulted in an infraction of civil rights---.---Plaintiff filed the suit to avenge his defeat in elections to the office of Bishop of Karachi---.---Plaintiff did not want to part with possession of house which was temporarily given to him when he was temporarily appointed as Commissary of the Diocese of Karachi until the Consecration Ceremony and being Commissary…