1988 PLP 1628 (CLC)
PAKISTAN FILM DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION‑‑Applicant Versus SANGEET PICTURES and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1628 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin, C j |
| Parties | PAKISTAN FILM DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION‑‑Applicant Versus SANGEET PICTURES and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1628 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1628 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Naimuddin, C j.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1628 (CLC) (PAKISTAN FILM DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION‑‑Applicant Versus SANGEET PICTURES and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ainuddin for Respondent No. 3.,
- Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Respondent No. 4.
- Date of hearing: 15th December, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑O. VII, R. 11‑‑Trade Organizations Ordinance (XLII. of 1961), S.12 (1)‑‑Petitioner's application for rejection of plaint on ground that suit was not maintainable as same was barred under S. 12 (1) of Ordinance (XLII of 1961) was dismissed by Trial Court stating in dismissal order that Court would like to frame issue on maintainability of suit at time of framing of issues‑‑High Court in the interest of justice directed Trial Court to frame issue with regard to maintainability of suit and try same as a preliminary issue and decide it first. S.S. Akbar for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑O. VII, R. 11‑‑Trade Organizations Ordinance (XLII. of 1961), S.12 (1)‑‑Petitioner's application for rejection of plaint on ground that suit was not maintainable as same was barred under S. 12 (1) of Ordinance (XLII of 1961) was dismissed by Trial Court stating in dismissal order that Court would like to frame issue on maintainability of suit at time of framing of issues‑‑High Court in the interest of justice directed Trial Court to frame issue with regard to maintainability of suit and try same as a preliminary issue and decide it first. S.S. Akbar for Applicant. Ainuddin for Respondent No. 3., Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Respondent No.
4. Date of hearing: 15th December, 1987. The order dated 19‑11‑1986 passed .by the XI Civil Judge, Karachi (South) has been impugned in this revision application. By the impugned order the applicant's application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint was dismissed. The applicants had stated in the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. that the suit was not maintainable and was barred under section 12 (1) of the Trade Organizations Ordinance; 1961 (Ordinance XLII of 1961) as amended by the Trade Organizations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962 (Ordinance XLV of 1962). From the impugned order it appears that the learned Civil Judge was conscious of the issue involved in the suit and he stated in the impugned order that he would like to frame an issue on the maintainability of the suit at the time of settling the issues. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad states that in view of this observation, this revision application is premature, as the learned Judge himself has stated as mentioned above. The objection of Mr. S.S. Akbar is that he has not stated that he would frame the issue‑and try it as a preliminary issue. I think that the ends of justice would meet if I give direction now that the learned Civil Judge should frame an issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of section 12 of the Ordinance XLII of 1961 and try it as a preliminary issue and decide it first. This satisfies all the learned) counsel present. I would, therefore, order accordingly. The revision application stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. H . B . T . /P‑50/ K Order accordingly.