2007 PLP 255 (CLC)
ABDUL RAQEEB and 9 others — Petitioners Versus 1ST RENT CONTROLLER/1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SUKKUR and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 255 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RAQEEB and 9 others — Petitioners Versus 1ST RENT CONTROLLER/1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SUKKUR and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 255 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 255 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 255 (CLC) (ABDUL RAQEEB and 9 others — Petitioners Versus 1ST RENT CONTROLLER/1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SUKKUR and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mukesh Kumar G. Karara for Petitioners.
- Shaikh Abdul Rehman for Respondents Nos.2 to 5.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10
Proceedings could be stayed if the matters in issue in both the suits directly and substantially were the same; previously instituted suit must be pending before a competent Court and the Court was competent to grant relief; both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives and the parties were litigating in both the suits under the same title.
Ss. 10 & 11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioners had challenged order passed by the Rent Controller by which he had stayed further proceedings of ejectment application
Application was stayed on the basis of pendency of civil revision before the High Court
Rent Controller had not discussed the grounds on the basis of which proceedings were stayed
Facts of ejectment application and civil revision, were not directly and substantially the same
Section 10, C.P.C. provided stay of proceedings in a subsequently instituted suit in the presence of earlier suit
Ejectment application could not be stayed on the strength of pending suit
Ejectment application was prior in time and civil revision was subsequent in time
Section 10, C.P.C. would apply when two suits were pending and the matter in both suits was same
After stay of proceedings in the subsequent suit, decision given in the previously instituted suit would operate as res judicata by virtue of S.11, C.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.
The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 11-8-2006 passed by respondent No.1 by which he has stayed further proceeding of Rent Application No.77 of 1980. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that section 10 of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to rent proceedings. He further submits that the proceedings cannot be stayed unless the matters in issue in both the proceedings are directly and substantially the same and that both the matters should be between the same parties. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 5 has supported the order of respondent No.1 and has pointed out from the impugned order that earlier also the proceedings was stayed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me. From reading section 10 of C.P.C. it appears that proceeding can be stayed. (1) If the matters in issue in both the suits must; be directly and substantially the same, (2) the previously instituted suit must be pending before a competent Court and the Court is competent to grant relief, (3) both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives, (4) and the parties are litigating in both the suits under the same title. I have perused the order. The rent application was stayed on the basis of pendency of civil revision before the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur Bench. The learned Rent Controller has not discussed the grounds on the basis of which the proceedings can be stayed. It is an admitted position that facts of ejectment applicant and civil revision are not directly and substantially the same. Furthermore section 10 provides stay of proceedings in a subsequently instituted suit in the presence of earlier suit. An ejectment application cannot be stayed on the strength of pending suit. From the order it is clear that Rent Application No.77 of 1980 was prior in time and the civil revision was subsequent in time. Furthermore section 10 only applies when two suits are pending and the matter in both suits is same. It is also to be noted that after stay of proceedings in the subsequent suit, the decision given in the previously instituted suit will operate as res judicata by virtue of section 11 of C.P.C. This condition is not available in this case. I, therefore, allow the petition and set aside the order, dated 11-8-2006 passed by respondent No.1 and direct him to proceed with the case expeditiously and to conclude the same within one month from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance to this Court through Additional Registrar of this Court. The parties will appear before respondent No.1 on 9-11-2006 and no Court motion notice will be issued. H.B.T./A-137/K Petition allowed: