Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12 , 42 , 13

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---- Ss. 12 & 42 --- West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 & OXXI, R.103-- Maintainability of suit --- Framing of issues, a prerequisite --- Plaintiff's suit praying for a decree for possession through specific performance of agreement, regarding property in question, or in the alternative decree for declaration to the effect that he was a co-sharer of said property and that ejectment order in respect of that property was illegal, without jurisdiction, mala fide and as such, was ineffective upon his rights, was pending in Court --- Defendant during pendency of such suit making application for rejection of plaint, which was dismissed by Court-- Validity --- Defendant on strength of OXXI, R.103, C.P.C. contending that suit riled by plaintiff was barred --- Defendant's such contention was not well-founded for, suit riled by plaintiff was for specific performance, relief wherein could not be granted by Rent Controller --- Defendant's contention that plaintiff's suit on the face of it was barred by law so as to attract mischief of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was not warranted by law --- Trial Court was thus justified in taking view that question of maintainability of suit could be decided only after framing necessary issues. Ch. Zafar Iqbal Bajwa for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Syed Kalim Ahmad Khurshid for Respondent No.3. Nemo for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1991. JUDGMENT This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 assails the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 24th of July, 1986 whereby he dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura dated 4th of February, 1985.   The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No3 Sh. Muhammad Sharif on 27th of June, 1984 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.4 with the following relief- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for possession through…