Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 1519 1996 SLD 1519 1996 CLC 1672
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No.26 of 1995, decision dated: 9-04-1996, hearing DATE : 7th April; 1996
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE FAROOQI, J
Ch.. Abdul Karim for Appellant. Mahmood Khan Mallick for
Respondent

Azad J&K MUHAMMAD LATIF

VS

MUHMMAD IQBAL

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------0.11, R. 2 & O.XXIII, R. - 1(3)---Withdrawal of earlier suit without permission of Court to file fresh suit---Effect---Subsequent suit between same parties in respect of same land---Maintainability---Plaintiff in terms of 0.11, R. 2, C.P.C. was required to include whole claim and all reliefs against defendant in respect of a cause of action and if any portion of claim was omitted, he would not be entitled to relief to that extent in any later proceedings---Plaintiff had omitted in earlier suit claim for recovery of possession which he could make up to the date when suit was withdrawn through amendment in plaint---Plaintiff having withdrawn suit without seeking permission of Court to bring fresh suit, his claim would be treated to have been relinquished within the meaning of 0.11, R. 2, C.P.C.---Trial Court had rightly found that suit earlier instituted and withdrawn without permission for filing fresh suit would bar second suit in respect of same subject-matter=-­Appellate Court below had erroneously restored that suit---Judgment and decree of Trial Court was restored while that of Appellate Court was set aside . in circumstances. 1990 MLD 1652 and 1991 MLD 2369 rel. AIR 1930 Lah. 599 and PLD 1981 Lah. 33 ref. ORDER This is a second civil appeal assailing the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kotli dated 27-4-1995, whereby he had set aside the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Kotli dated 31-7-1994. 2. The facts briefly are that a suit was instituted by the respondent in the Court of Sub-Judge, Kotli on 11-8-1992 for the recovery of possession of land measuring 17 Marlas, comprising in Survey No.565 and a further prayer for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession was also made. 3. It was stated in the plaint that land measuring 12 Kanals, and 12 Marlas in Survey No.565 is the property of plaintiff. The defendant had. raised plinth for construction of a shop over the plaintiff's property. When the plaintiff got the knowledge, he- got his land demarcated and thereupon it was found that plinth was over 1 Marla of land moreover the 16 Marlas of the…
🔒
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