Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2074 2006 SLD 2074 2006 CLC 730
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.2657 of 2004, heard on 16-02-2005.
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, 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

SHAUKAT YAR MUHAMMAD

VS

Ch. JAMAL DIN through L.Rs. and 4 others

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. I, R.10 & S.151---Impleading of party---Application for--Application filed to be impleaded as party in pending appeal having been dismissed by Appellate Court, applicant challenged same in revision---Application contained some averments which were factual in nature---Proper course for Appellate Court was to receive reply from the parties who intended to oppose said application---Mere delay in making application was not enough to dismiss said application---In terms of 0. I, R.10, C.P.C. such a power could be exercised by the Court at any time if presence of a party was necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved---There being conflicting claims of parties qua suit property, application filed by applicant had not been disposed of in accordance with law which needed to be heard and decided by Appellate Court after receiving reply thereto from those who opposed to his being impleaded as party---Revision against impugned order was accepted with the direction that application tiled by applicant for impleading him as party would be deemed to be pending before Appellate Court, which would be decided in accordance with law. Khalid Ikram Khatana for Petitioner. Respondents: Ex parse. Date of hearing: 16th February, 2005. JUDGMENT SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Shaukat Yar Muhammad, the petitioner herein, had made an application 'before the Appellate Court to be impleaded as party in the pending appeal which application has been dismissed through the impugned order dated 18-10-2004, which has been assailed through this revision petition. Despite notice and intimation about the pendency of this petition, the respondents have not entered appearance, the petition thus, has been heard ex parte. 2. Stating the background of the litigation, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner was necessary party and should have been allowed to be impleaded as such, whose application has wrongly and illegally been rejected. 3. The perusal of the application made under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C. for impleading him as party shows that some land was allotted to Muhammad…
🔒
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