Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 1443 2008 SLD 1443 2008 SCMR 88
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P.L.A. No.349-K of 2005, decision dated: 18-10-2006.(On appeal from the judgment of Sindh High Court, Circuit Court at Larkana, dated 9-3-2005 passed in Civil Revision Application No.83 of 2003)
RANA BHAGWANDAS AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents

GHULAM HUSSAIN and others

VS

NADIR ALI and others

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. VIII, R.10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Failure to file written statement---Petitioners, who were defendants in suit filed by respondents for declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction, having failed to file written statement despite seeking adjournment, suit filed by respondents was decreed---Appeal against said decree and revision against appellate order filed by petitioners having failed, petitioners had sought leave to appeal against impugned of the High Court---Counsel for petitioners contended that, it was a case of pure and simple adjournment owing to inability of petitioners to persuade their counsel to prepare a written statement without the receipt of professional fee; there being force in submission of counsel for petitioners, leave to appeal was granted against impugned of the High Court. Sakhawatuddin S. Muhammad Iqbal 1987 SCMR 1365; Ayub Ali Rana v. Carlite v. Pune PLD 2002 SC 630 and Pehalwan v. Ali Ahmad 2005 SCMR 1044 ref. ORDER RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Sindh High Court judgment, dated 9-3-2005 dismissing their civil revision application directed against concurrent findings of two Courts whereby suit filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was decreed against them under the provisions of order VIII; rule 10, C.P.C. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in a suit for declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction seeking the following reliefs:-- "(a) To declare that plaintiffs are owners of S.No.127/3, 127/4, 128/1 and 128/2, 3, 4 of Deh Allah Rakhio Junejo, Taluka Mirokhan and the mutation order of defendant No.5 at the instance of defendants Nos.6 and 7 is illegal, mala fide, without lawful jurisdiction. (b) To cancel the record of rights, which have been changed in favour of the defendants Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the suit property. (c) To restrain the defendants from taking the possession of the suit property to plaintiffs." 3. After the service of summons, they moved an application for filing written statement, which was granted. Official respondents being least interested were proceeded ex…
🔒
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