2004 PLP 752 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR CHAUDHRY — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ BUTT and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 752 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR CHAUDHRY — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ BUTT and 2 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 2004 PLP 752 (MLD)?
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 2004 PLP 752 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 752 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR CHAUDHRY — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ BUTT and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Masud Akash for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O.VII, RAI
Suit for damages for tortuous acts
Rejection of plaint without recording evidence
Validity--Plaintiff would get decree, if several factual allegations made in plaint were proved at trial
High Court set aside such order and remanded case to Trial Court to decide same in accordance with law.
O.XXII, R.6
Suit for damages for tortuous acts
Death of one of the defendants before passing of decree
Suit would stand abated to the extent of deceased defendant.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O.XXII, R.6
Suit for damages for tortuous acts
Death of one of the defendants before passing of decree
Suit would stand abated to the extent of deceased defendant. Sardar Masud Akash for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2003. A suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 19-6-1994, claiming damages for illegal confinement, assault and battery was resisted only by respondent No.1 who filed a written statement denying the said allegations. An application was filed under Order VII rule 11 C.P.C. that since the said respondent had obtained the car in question on Superdari from a Court at Gujranwala, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The learned trial Court proceeded to reject the plaint vide order dated 17-7-1995 A learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner on 27-9-1997.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and had the petitioner been given a chance to prove the contents thereof, he would have to a decree. Respondent No.3 has been reported to be dead. While other respondents have not turned up. They are proceeded against ex parte. I have examined the plaint I find that the learned Courts below have acted in violation of law laid down by the superior judiciary in the matter of the examination of plaint for the purposes of Order VII rule 11 C.P.C. Several factual allegations have been made in the plaint in case the petitioner proves the same at the trial, he will get a decree. However, since the suit has been filed for damages in torts and respondent No. 3 JB' has died before a decree could be passed, to his extent the suit stands abated and the civil revision is dismissed. However, it stands accepted so far as respondents Nos. l and 2 are concerned. The impugned orders of both the learned Courts below are set aside. The result will be that the C suit filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending against respondents Nos. l and 2 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, who shall requisition the record, summon respondents Nos. l and 2 and proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. No orders as to costs. S.A.K./M-2481/L Revision accepted.