| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLD 845 = 1994 CLC 2302 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1842 of 1985, decided on 8th February, 1993.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
Ch. Muzammal Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Rashid Ziladar on behalf of
Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Rafiq Khan assisted by C.A. Rehman for
Respondent No.3
Civil Revision No. 1842 of 1985, decided on 8th February, 1993.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
Ch. Muzammal Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Rashid Ziladar on behalf of
Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Rafiq Khan assisted by C.A. Rehman for
Respondent No.3
Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR---Petitioner
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER and others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 11
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R. 11---Plaint showing triable issues would not deserve summary rejection ---Unceremonial burial of such plaint without formal trial of points taken therein would not be warranted. Abdul Qayum and another v. Niaz Muhammad and another 1992 SCMR 613 rel. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R. 11 & S. 115---Rejection of plaint---Validity---Rejection of plaint eing unwarranted, order rejecting the same was set aside and case was emanded to Trial Court for decision on merits. Ch. Muzammal Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Rashid Ziladar on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Rafiq Khan assisted by C.A. Rehman for Respondent No.3 Date of hearing: 8th February, 1993. JUDGMENT Plaint in the suit for annulment of an order dated 30-7-1984 by a Divisional Canal Officer, for restoration of a dismantled Khal, passed under section 68-A of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, and for perpetual injunction for stopping its implementation was rejected, under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P.C. Its decision was affirmed in appeal on similar grounds. A revision filed in this Court to challenge the correctness of these decisions was admitted to hearing, on 2-10-1985. The trial Court took the view that the impugned order was in the nature of interim arrangement and was to be followed by a final order. Therefore, it could not be reviewed by the Civil Court and a suit for setting aside of it did not lie. Appellate Court agreed with it.…