| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 305 1974 SLD 305 1974 PLD 322 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1970, decided on 10th September 1974. dates of hearing : 28th, 29th March, 8th April, 9th and 10th May 1974. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the former High Court of West Pakistan (Baghdadul Jadid), dated 23rd December 19
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1970, decided on 10th September 1974. dates of hearing : 28th, 29th March, 8th April, 9th and 10th May 1974. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the former High Court of West Pakistan (Baghdadul Jadid), dated 23rd December 19
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. MURAD BEGUM ETc.
VS
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ETC.
Law:
Section:
(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956----O. XVI, r. 9-Change of parties pending appeal-B alive but appellant not impleading B as one of respondents and instead impleading legal representatives of B as respondents-Contention that decree-sheet showed B as "respondent through her legal representatives" and this misdescription in decree misled the appellant in repeating it "sin in his appeal-Held, sufficient cause, in circumstance, existed for condoning delay in allowing substitution of name of B in place of her legal representatives; appeal could not be allowed to be defeated merely because of a technical defect arising out of a misdescription appearing in decree under appeal. (b) New plea- ---Party not permitted to raise new ground of attack or defence by departing from its previous pleadings. It is well settled that a party cannot be permitted to raise an altogether new ground of attack or defence, by departing from its previous pleadings, especially when the opposite-party had no opportunity to adduce evidence in this behalf or to otherwise have an opportunity of meeting the plea during the course of the trial. Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mst. Saran A I R 1930 P C 57 ; Hem Chand v. Pearey Lal A I R 1942 P C 64 ; Kanda v. Waghu A I R 1950 P C 68 ; Messrs Choudhry Brothers v. Jaranwala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1968 S C M R 804 ; Mst. Sherina v. Haji Ghawar Khan 1972 S C M R 646 and Abdul Karim v. Mirza Bashir Ahmad P L D 1974 S C 61 ref. (c) Appeal (Civil) - Abatement-Decree passed by trial Court against several defendants joint and indivisible-In appeal by some of defendants failure to implead rest of defendants or any one of them-Would render appeal incompetent-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, rr. 3 & 11. Once it is found that the decree appealed from by some of the defendants was joint stud indivisible against all the defendants, then it follows that their failure to implead the remaining defendants, or any of them, would render the appeal incompetent. The principle underlying this rule is that otherwise inconsistent and contradictory decrees would come into existence regarding the same subject-matter and as a result of the same litigation. Ram Chand…
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