1990 PLP 13 (SCMR)
Mst. MUBARAK BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA
| Citation | 1990 PLP 13 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MUBARAK BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 13 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 13 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 13 (SCMR) (Mst. MUBARAK BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑9‑1981 in W.P. No.3950 of 1980). ‑‑‑O. VI, R. 17‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Amendment of plaint‑‑‑Trial Courts.' order for amendment of plaint was set aside as also plaintiff's suit was dismissed in revisional jurisdiction by the District Judge‑‑‑High Court, in Constitutional jurisdiction, declared the dismissal of suit by the Revisional Court as without lawful authority but its setting aside the order of amendment of plaint was upheld‑‑‑Plaintiff's case thus stood remanded to the Trial Court for trial of suit as originally presented‑‑‑Both the parties sought leave to appeal‑‑‑Leave was granted to examine, whether it was not a fit case for grant of permission to amend the plaint; if so, whether the order of Trial Court directing the amendment was without lawful authority, illegal or improper; whether the Revisional Court could have dismissed the suit or should have passed proper order for remand; and all other related questions; as also, those raised in the petitions. Karim Dad v. Arif Ali and another P L D 1978 Lah.679 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These petitions are by both the sides in a civil suit, regarding declaration, in respect of a land transaction. They have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.3950 of 1980 filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners in C.P. 1119/81). The writ petitioners/plaintiffs sought more than one relief in the same suit. The trial Court directed them to amend the plaint so as to correct the form of the suit. The defendants side (petitioners in C.P. 1122/81 filed a Civil Revision before the District Court challenging the order of the trial Court. It was allowed. Not only the order of remand was set aside but the suit also was dismissed. Reliance was placed on Karim Dad v. Arif Ali and another P L D 1978 Lah.
679. The plaintiffs side (petitioners in C.P. 1119) then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was partly allowed. The dismissal of the suit by the appellate Court was declared as without lawful authority but the setting aside of the order of amendment of the plaint was upheld. Thus, the case stood remanded to the trial Court for trial of the suit as originally presented. In the above circumstance both the parties having felt aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, have sought leave to appeal. After hearing both the counsel, we consider it a fit case for grant of leave, to examine; whether it was not a fit case for permission to amend the plaint. If so, whether the order of the trial Court directing the amendment was without lawful authority, illegal or improper; whether the Revisional Court could have dismissed the suit or, should have passed proper order for remand; and all other related questions; as also, those raised in these petitions. Security Rs.2,000 in each case. The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. They shall be heard together in the month of October, 1988. A.A./M‑979/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.