Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1129 2005 SLD 1129 2005 CLC 160
Lahore High Court
C.R. No.2068 of 1997, heard on 6-09-2004.
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

Messrs ENVIRONMENT CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

VS

MUHAMMAD SARWAR and others

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 39 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10 & O.XXII, Rr.10 & 11 & S.115---Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed---Necessary party, non-impleading of---Devolution of interest during pendency of suit---Successors of the previous owner of the suit-land assailed two registered sale-deeds executed in years, 1968 and 1970 in favour of defendants on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation--­Suit was filed in year 1981 and during the pendency of suit, the defendants sold the suit-land to petitioner company vide registered sale-­deed dated 29-12-1985---Suit was decreed by Trial Court on 5-5-1994 and appeal was filed by defendants before Appellate Court---Petitioner company filed application under O.I, R.10 C.P.C before Appellate Court on 18-11-1997 for impleading it as a necessary party---Appellate Court dismissed the application of the petitioner for the reason that if the petition would be entertained, it would be to pull the clock back as once again the parties would stand at the stage where they were in the year 1981---Validity---Court was entitled to add any person at any stage of the proceedings, enabling it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit---Apart from the provisions of O. I, R.10 C. P. C. which were to be construed liberally by the Court, the provisions of O.XXII, Rr.10 and 11 C.P.C. also were applicable--­Rejection of application by Appellate Court for impleadment of the petitioner as party to the appeal was not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the present case, rather the petitioner who had come forward for protecting and defending its right and interest of its own should have been allowed to be impleaded and heard in the matter--­View taken by the Appellate Court in rejecting the application of petitioner was untenable and erroneous in law and was not sustainable--­High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Appellate Court and remanded the matter to Lower Appellate Court for hearing and deciding the appeal after impleading the petitioner as party thereto---Revision…
🔒
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