2005 PLP 1075 (CLC)
ALLAH NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUSA ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1075 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Parvez Ahmad, J |
| Parties | ALLAH NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUSA ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1075 (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 2005 PLP 1075 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Parvez Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1075 (CLC) (ALLAH NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUSA ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th November, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O. VII, R. 2‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑‑Plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of amount with assertion that ‑ defendant, who was in possession of property as a lessee, had failed to make payment of lease amount‑‑‑Trial Court decreed suit, but on appeal decretal sum was reduced from Rs.15,537.50 to Rs.9,000‑‑‑Plaintiff assailed legality and validity of order of Appellate Court in revision‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant in his cross‑examination had admitted that plaintiffs had not filed any suit for recovery of money for the lease period which had been paid by him which clearly meant that suit filed by plaintiffs was with regard to lease money which had not been paid by defendant‑‑‑Suit of plaintiffs, in circumstances was liable to be decreed for entire amount and judgment of Appellate Court, in that context was not liable to be maintained‑‑ Allowing revision, by High Court; judgment and decree of Appellate Court, were set aside and those of Trial Court were maintained.
Judgment & Decree
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th November, 2003. The petitioners have assailed the order of the Appellate Court by virtue of which the appeal filed by the respondent/defendant was partly accepted and the judgment of the trial Court was modified.
2. The facts in brief are that the present petitioners brought a suit for recovery of amount with the assertion that the respondent/defendant was in possession of the property as a lessee and had failed to make payment of the lease amount totally Rs.15,537.50. The respondent/defendant contested the suit and the trial Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence of the parties decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners. However, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal before the Appellate Court from where it was modified and decretal sum was reduced to Rs.9,
000. The petitioners with this background have assailed the legality and validity of the order of the Appellate Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard. None on behalf of the respondent has appeared in response to pre‑admission notice. As such the entire record has also been perused.
4. When the respondent/defendant himself appeared as his own witness as D.W.2, he in cross‑examination admitted that the petitioners have not filed any suit for recovery of money for the lease period which has been paid by him. This clearly amounts that the suit filed by the petitioners is with regard to the lease money which had not been paid by the respondent/defendant and as such the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs was liable to be decreed for the entire amount and scanning the judgment of the Appellate Court in this context it is not liable to be maintained. As such this revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is hereby set aside and that of the trial Court is maintained. No order as to costs: H.B.T./A‑430/L Revision allowed.