Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 9 , 42 , 199

  Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-- --Ss. 9 & 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Consolidation of suits---Suit for declaration of title cannot be consolidated with a suit for possession, under S. 9, Specific Relief Act, 1877, procedure being entirely different in both the suits---Appeal in a suit for title, is competent, while in a suit for possession, revision lies---Where, however, objection to consolidation of suits was not taken in written statement or before the lower Court, such plea could not subsequently be allowed to be raised in constitutional petition. Mst. Arifa Begum v. Khulque Muhammad Naqvi PLD 1969 Kar. 193 rel. Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-- ---S.5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R. 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Plea of limitation as a bar to suit having not been raised in written statement, could not be raised subsequently especially in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 S C M R 322 and Muhammad Rafiq and others v. Barkat Ali and others 1988 SCMR1526 rel. Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-- ---S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Suit for possession-- Competency- --Plea that plaintiff was not actually dispossessed but the tenants were dispossessed, and that person actually dispossessed was only entitled to sue under provisions of S. 9, Specific Relief Act, having not been raised either in written statement or before lower Courts, could not be raised in constitutional petition. K.S. Abdullah Khan v. Faizullah Khan PLD 1950 Pesh. 35 and PLD 1977 Lah. 194 rel. Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan for Petitioner. S.M. Anwar Shah for Respondents. ORDER In this constitution petition, the judgment and decree dated 24-1-1988 pronounced by the learned Civil Judge, Liaqatpur, and those of the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, dated 8-7-1989 have been questioned.   The history of the previous litigation between the parties is that Mst. Ghulam Fatima claims to be an owner of the house in dispute, which she is alleged to have purchased from the Town Committee for Rs. 6,500. The respondent has contended that she…