| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2078 2018 SLD 2078 2018 YLR 2039 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 254 of 2016, decided & hearing on 10-01-2018
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Salahuddin Ahmed along with Salman Mirza for Appellant. Iftikhar Javed Qazi for
Respondent No.1. Amel Kansi for
Respondent No.2.
High Court Appeal No. 254 of 2016, decided & hearing on 10-01-2018
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Salahuddin Ahmed along with Salman Mirza for Appellant. Iftikhar Javed Qazi for
Respondent No.1. Amel Kansi for
Respondent No.2.
SHAHI SYED THROUGH ATTORNEY
VS
TOTAL PARCO MARKETING LIMITED THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S.108---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Suit for declaration---License agreement---Lease of land for operation of petrol Filling Station---Privity of contract---Plaint, rejection of---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that he was entitled to retain possession of suit land---Trial Court rejected the plaint being barred by law---Validity---Plaintiff was merely a licensee to carry on business of Filling Station and had executed agreement of service station and dealership with the Oil Company---Plaintiff had no privity of contract with the owner of suit property---Oil Company had acquired possession of suit property from its owner through lease agreement---Plaintiff was allowed temporary use of the service/filling station and sell the company's petroleum products---Plaintiff was licensee of Oil Company for a limited purpose and could not claim any right over subject property owned by the defendant---Owner of suit property had obtained an order of ejectment against the defendant-Oil Company---Defendant-Oil Company could not claim any right or entitlement to remain in possession of suit property and carry on business of selling its products---Plaintiff had no cause of action to seek enforcement of any contractual obligations---Suit was barred by law---Dispute with regard to possession of suit property had already been decided by Rent Controller---Court was bound not only to examine the territorial/monitory jurisdiction but maintainability of a suit in the first instance---Parties were not to be allowed to abuse the process of law by filing frivolous proceedings in the Court---Frivolous proceedings should be put to an end at a very initial stage---Impugned order did not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity---Appeal was dismissed in limine in circumstances. Noor Din and another v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others 2014 SCMR 513 rel. (b) Easements Act (V of 1882)--- ----S. 52--- 'License'--- Connotation. Black's Law Dictionary rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: AQEEL AHMAD ABBASI, J.--- Through instant High Court Appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 18.08.2016 passed by the…
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