Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLD 3093 = 1980 CLC 635
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 264 of 1979, decided on 17th September 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Ilyas, J

MUHAMMAD SHARIF-Appellant

VERSUS

ROSHAN DIN AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XIV, r. 2, M, 99

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XIV, r, M read with S. 99-Settlement of issues-Issues of law and of fact----Trial Court after framing all issues arising out of pleadings treating and disposing of first issue, happening to be an issue of fact, as a preliminary issue-Finding of fact recorded by trial Court on first issue affirmed by first appellate Court and not assailed before High Court-Failure of trial Court to act as required by provisions of r. 2, O. XIV not affecting merits of case or jurisdiction of Court Held, no exception can be taken to jurisdiction of trial Court to decide such issue, in circumstances. of case-[Janki Das and another v. Kalv Ram and another 162 1 C 486 not applicable].-[Jurisdiction].                                                                                                                          ORDER The facts ,giving rise to this regular second appeal are that the appellant, Muhammad Sharif, filed a suit against the respondents, Roshan Din and two others, for possession of a piece of land by pre-emption. The suit was resisted by the respondents on various grounds whereupon the following issues were framed by the Civil Judge who was seized of the suit :- (1) Whether the plaintiff has better right of pre-emption? (2) Whether Rs. 2 000, were actually paid or fixed in good faith as sale price 7 (3) Market value. (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring this suit-? (5) Whether the suit is time barred? (6) Whether valuation of the suit is incorrect for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? (7) Whether description of the suit land is incorrect? (8) Whether the suit is for partial pre-emption? (9) Relief. The learned Civil Judge took up the first issue as a preliminary issue and, in view of the evidence led thereon, decided the same against the appellant. As, by so doing, the learned trial Court had found that the appellant…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register