| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1803 2005 SLD 1803 2005 PLD 240 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision Application No. 122 of 2004, decided on 22nd July, 2004
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J
Farid Gul Khan for Applicant. Choudhry Muhammad Iqbal for
Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 122 of 2004, decided on 22nd July, 2004
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J
Farid Gul Khan for Applicant. Choudhry Muhammad Iqbal for
Respondent
GHULAM YAHYA through Attorney and Legal Representative
VS
ALI MUHAMMAD JAMAL MATERNITY HOMES
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 8,42
Law: Suits Valuation Act, 1887
Section: 8
Law: Court Fees Act, 1870
Section: 7(iv)(c),7(xii)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VII,Rr.1,11,92
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, Rr.1 & 11--Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.8---Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(iv)(c)---Suit for possession and declaration ---Maintainability-Defendant, who was servant of plaintiff which was a Charitable Trust, was allowed to occupy servant quarter within the hospital premises owned by plaintiff looking to the nature of duty of defendant---Defendant was asked to vacate premises by giving one month's notice after termination of his service and on refusal of defendant to vacate the same suit was filed against him---Defendant, instead of vacating premises resisted suit and filed application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint raising certain objections---Defendant having been allowed use of premises in-question being an employee of plaintiff's hospital, it would not be in his mouth to say that he was in occupation of premises in his own right---Findings recorded by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court that defendant was not owner of premises, but was occupying same as employee, did not suffer from any misreading or non reading of evidence as alleged by defendant---Trial Court had rightly found that suit by its nature being a suit for recovery of possession from the licensee, same would not fall under S.7(xii) of Court-Fees Act, 1870 and plaintiff was required to value subject-matter on the basis of annual rental value of subject property and plaintiff had rightly valued the suit--Defendant had also failed to point out any prejudice caused to him by entertaining suit by Ist Senior Civil Judge instead, of 3rd Civil Judge---Suit had rightly been decreed concurrently by Courts below. Sardar Begum v. Mukhtar Ahmed 2001 YLR 1435 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96 & O. VII, Rr.1 & 11---Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.8---Court-fee Act (VII of 1870), S.7---Suit for possession and declaration---Rejection of plaint--Suit was resisted by defendant alleging that same was undervalued and court-fee was not paid accordingly and plaint was liable to be rejected on…
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