| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 1211 1994 SLD 1211 1994 CLC 2296 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1187 of 1991, decision dated: 30-05-1993
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Writ Petition No. 1187 of 1991, decision dated: 30-05-1993
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. BILQEES BEGUM-
VS
Haji GHULAM RASOOL
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R. 11 & S. 115---Rejection of plaint by Revisional Court ---Validity--Revision against interim order whereby Trial Court had allowed plaintiff to incorporate certain amendments in plaint ---Revisional Court rejecting plaint--Plaint could not be rejected by Revisional Court in ~such proceedings--Revisional Court would be travelling beyond its jurisdiction in rejecting plaint, for suit was not pending before it for adjudication---Plaint was restored for adjudication on merits. Sultan Mahmood Khan for Petitioner. Zaka-ur-Rehman Lodhi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th March, 1993. JUDGMENT The petitioner, Mst. Bilqees Begum daughter of Maulvi Allah Ditta Butt instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Haji Ghulam Rasool and another before the learned Civil Judge, Lahore on 2'8-5-1988. An amended suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on 9-10-1988. The suit was contested by the respondent No. l by filing written-statement on 9-10-1988. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Judge on 11-5-1989: (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? (2) Whether the suit has been filed with the connivance and at the instigation of the defendant No.2? (3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? (4) Whether the suit is time-barred? (5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for, (7) Relief. The case was adjourned for recording evidence of the plaintiff, an application was moved by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. for permission to amend the plaint on 6-3-1990. The application was contested by the respondent No.1 by filing written reply on 7-3-1990. The learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 29-3-1990 allowed the petitioner-plaintiff to make necessary amendment in the plaint. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff wanted to challenge an appellate order having been passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 12-2-1989 through…
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