Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.I,R.10(2),O.XXII,R.10,11

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.I,R.10(2),O.XXII,R.10,11

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. I, R. 10---Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980), S.15---High Court appeal---Substitution of party---Application by defendant under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. was allowed and he was permitted to be substituted as defendant in the place of existing defendant with the observation that "subject to all rights available under proceedings already taken place would be binding on the newly joined defendant"---Contention of counsel for the appellant was that despite said observation, Single Judge of High Court had directed the substituted defendant to file written statement which was against the observation of the court---Original defendant having already filed his written statement, observation of Single Judge in the impugned order to the effect that said defendant had been declared ex parte, was incorrect---Question of filing of written statement by the substituted defendant in such circumstances, would not arise, as he had been substituted subject to the condition that the proceedings already undertaken, would be binding on him----Direction for filing written statement being contrary to the condition imposed by Single Judge, was deleted by Division Bench, in circumstances. Mst. Surraya Begum v. Mst. Suban Begum 1992 SCMR 652 and Policherala Veeraraghava Reddi v. Cherla Subba Reddi and others AIR 1920 Madras 391 ref. Mansoor-ul-Arifin for Appellants (in all the Appeals). Adnan Usman Respondent No.23 (in H.C.A. No.95.of 2007). Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui for UBL (in all the Appeals). Shahjehan for proposed Applicants/Intervenors. Date of hearing: 5th March, 2008. JUDGMENT MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.--- We propose to dispose of the above four High Court Appeals by this common judgment as the question involved therein is identical, since a single order has been passed on all the miscellaneous applications separately filed by different parties after separately discussing each application„ therefore, separate High Court Appeals have been filed. In H.C.A. No.95 of 2007 the appellant has impugned the order dated 31-1-2007, passed on C.M.A. No.6819 of 2006 filed by respondent No.23 under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., which was allowed…

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