| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 787 1993 SLD 787 1993 CLC 1606 |
Sindh High Court
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J
Mansoorul Arfin alongwith Khalid Javed for Plaintiffs. B.M. Bangash for Defendants No. 1 to 8 and 10 to 12. S.I.H. Zaidi for Defendant No. 16. Munirur Rahman for Defendant
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J
Mansoorul Arfin alongwith Khalid Javed for Plaintiffs. B.M. Bangash for Defendants No. 1 to 8 and 10 to 12. S.I.H. Zaidi for Defendant No. 16. Munirur Rahman for Defendant
MOINUDDIN PARACHA and 6 others--PlaintiffsvsSIRAJUDDIN PARACHA and 23 others----Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0.1, Rr. 2 & 3---Joining co-owners of property in one suit---Effect---Parties joined in one suit as plaintiffs and defendants were joint owners of property in question, which was one and single entity---Each one of them had share in each millimetre---Fact - that parties had acquired undivided share in different modes viz. inheritance, gift and purchase would be immaterial---Plaintiffs as also defendants had although acquired their specific shares in the property in question, by different modes, such rights had been acquired by them in respect of one and the same subject-matter---Suit was not bad for misjoinder of plaintiffs and defendants. Anukul Chandran Chakrawarti v. Province of Bengal and others AIR 1947 Cal. 374; Kanhaiyalal v. Keshodas AIR 1961 Madh. Pra. 46 and Kamal Kant Gopalgi v. Madhavji AIR 1935 Bom. 343 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0.1, Rr.2 & 3---Object, scope and import of provisions of 0.1, Rr.2 & 3, Civil Procedure Code---Underlying object of provisions contained in 0.1, Rr.2 & 3, C.P.C. was to avoid multifariousness ---Plaintiffs had to be joined together for seeking their relief and so also defendants were joined together for the said purpose---Plaintiffs as also defendants being joint owners of property in question, all of them were necessary -parties---By dropping any one of the plaintiffs or defendants, suit would be rendered bad for non-joinder of necessary party---Court although had to assess and determine legality of each of the acquisitions pleaded by plaintiffs and possibility could not be ruled out that each of the defendants might raise different pleas with regard to separate acquisition by plaintiffs yet merely for such reason, suit could not be regarded to be multifarious. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0.11, R.2---Bar of suit---Essentials of 011, R.2, Civil Procedure Code, to bar subsequent suit relating to relinquishment of part of claim having not been constituted, such suit was not barred---Previous suit was not between the rocs which had ,been arrayed in the subsequent suit---Previous suit was though for partition of property, yet all…
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