| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 1501 1991 SLD 1501 1991 SCMR 2030 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.19-Q of 1988, decision dated: 27-05-1991(From the judgment of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 25-8-1987 passed in Civil Revision No.67 of 1987)
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.19-Q of 1988, decision dated: 27-05-1991(From the judgment of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 25-8-1987 passed in Civil Revision No.67 of 1987)
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Haji MITHA KHAN
MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. VII, R.11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether in view of the very positive findings recorded by the High Court in the in question, it was justified in maintaining the rejection of plaint under O.VII, R.11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--O. VII, R.11---Cause of action---Test---Elements and ingredients constituting cause of action---Test of cause of action was that if what plaintiff had stated was taken to be correct, was he entitled to relief or not---In case of defect in the frame of suit, opportunity had to be allowed to the party to correct that defect and to remove the deficiency, if any, in court-fee---Finding of Court below that no cause of action was made out from plaint was not sustainable, for plaintiff had claimed in his plaint that he had entered into a valid compromise, that defendants were party thereto and were bound by the same and that his rights under the compromise a were being violated; all such facts constituted cause of action---Case was remanded for decision afresh on other aspects of the case. The vagueness of the plaint, of the relief claimed, the deficiency in the court-fee, the defective form of suit, the repugnancy of the compromise to the Islamic principles and the question of limitation were all questions which would arise only when there was a cause of action. If there was no cause of action, all these subsequent questions would not arise. The test of cause of action was that if what the plaintiff had stated was taken to be correct would it entitle him to a relief or not in law. In the case in hand the appellant clearly claimed that he had entered into a valid compromise, that the respondents were party to it or bound by it, that both the parties were bound by it and that the rights of the appellant under the compromise were being violated. This would afford a cause of action to the plaintiff and it would only be on merits that he could be defeated. If it was held that the claim was not within time, the parties were not parties to the compromise, the compromise was not in accordance with the law…
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