Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2340 2006 SLD 2340 2006 CLC 1839
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.364/D of 1993, heard on 14-06-2006.
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J

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

KARAM ALI alias KARMALLI through L.Rs.

VS

NASEEM AKHTAR and 8 others

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VII, R. 11 & O.VI, R.2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Agreement to sell---Suit for declaration---Alternate prayer for specific performance 'of agreement to sell---Scope---Rejection of plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Validity---Plaintiff filed declaratory suit on the basis of agreement to sell, seeking declaration that he was owner in possession of suit-land and also made an alternate prayer for specific performance of agreement to sell---Trial Court rejected plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., holding that suit for declaration was not maintainable on an agreement to sell---Plaintiff contended that alternate pleas were not barred in law and suit could be decreed on basis of specific performance of agreement to sell---Appeal filed against finding of Trial Court was also dismissed---Validity---Under O.VH, R.11, C.P.C. court could reject plaint if it did not disclose a cause of action or relief was undervalued or plaint was written on an insufficiently stamped paper or the suit was barred under law---If a suit was to be rejected as being undervalued or written on an insufficiently stamped paper, plaintiff was to be granted time to rectify the defect---Lower Appellate Court adverted to rejection of plaint on valuation but it did not provide any opportunity to plaintiff to rectify the fault and thus incorrectly applied the relevant law---Trial Court also wrongly non-suited plaintiff by holding that suit for declaration was not maintainable on basis of agreement to sell as there was alternate plea in the plaint for specific performance of agreement to sell---Validity---Alternate pleas were not barred in law---Court was empowered to grant alternate relief if facts were not inconsistent between two reliefs, even if plaintiff had not made a specific prayer, in that respect---Provisions of O.VI, R.2, C.P.C. permitted a party to state all material facts which were present in plaint filed by plaintiff---Both the Courts below concurrently misapplied provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. and non-suited the plaintiff---Law required adjudication on merits and technicalities could not be allowed to stifle justice---Concurrent…
🔒
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