Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 818 1993 SLD 818 1993 CLC 1327
Lahore High Court

MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, J
Petitioner in person. Tassadiq Hussain Gillani, AA.G. for
Respondents

AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN, BARRISTER

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Collector, Multan and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908)--- ---O.I, R.10-- Adding or deleting a party---Plaintiff's contention that he alone had the option to keep a person, a corporate body or an organisation, in the array of defendants, or to ask for the deletion of the same, and that the Court could not stand in his way, for plaintiff had no compulsion in that regard and that plaintiff would control the litigation which he had set in motion, way: incorrect---Court which was seized of a cause would control the litigation and' dispose of same in accordance with law---Plaintiff could not be permitted to hoodwink the process of law or abuse process of the Court for furtherance of his vested interests---Court has to see to it if the lis lies, and whether it has a sound basis and plaintiff has established on the strength of his evidence as who amongst the defendants has to bear the brunt and be regarded as the -debtor---Court on equitable consideration, might not find itself inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of plaintiff while granting or refusing to grant any interim relief---Official who was initially made a party to the suit was sought to be deleted by plaintiff without any explanation to offer as to how such official had become unnecessary party subsequently---Official concerned, who was alleged to have made adverst entries against plaintiff, unless was heard, no direction could be given to him to rectify the mistake---Such person being necessary party to the suit, his name could not be struck off at the behest of the plaintiff.--[Administration o: justice]. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 55---Suit for mandatory injunction---Maintainability---Plaintiff in the garb of mandatory injunction was seeking to have him declared as exclusive and absolute owner of land in question---Such suit should have been for declaration and injunction, and not for merely an injunction, and that too in mandatory form---Persons recorded as owners could not be deleted, unless plaintiff was first determined to be the owner to the exclusion of everyone else---Device adopted by plaintiff to achieve his object must be regarded as surreptitious a:: also crafty; Court has to see if…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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