2007 PLP 1188 (CLC)
WALI MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Applicants Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through D.C.O. Hyderabad and 10 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1188 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Applicants Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through D.C.O. Hyderabad and 10 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1188 (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 2007 PLP 1188 (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 1188 (CLC) (WALI MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Applicants Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through D.C.O. Hyderabad and 10 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aijaz Ali Hakro for Respondents Nos.6 to 11.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115
Petitioners' appeal was dismissed by Appellate Court on two technical grounds, firstly that defendant against whom decree was passed by the Trial Court, and who had not preferred appeal, were not arrayed as respondents, in appeal and secondly that official respondent who were defendants in the suit had not been made respondents in appeal
Dispute was purely between private parties, and official respondents were not necessary parties
Appellate Court did not give its decision on merits of the claim of respective parties and dismissed appeal only on technical grounds
Said technicalities could have been cured through amending the title of appeal subject to plea of limitation, if any
Impugned judgment was set aside and case was remanded to Appellate Court for decision of appeal on merits after amending title of memo of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.--The applicants, filed appeal before the Appellate Court was dismissed on technical grounds as some of the defendants against whom decree was passed but had not preferred appeal were not arrayed as respondents in appeal. The applicants' appeal was also dismissed on the ground that official respondents who were defendants in the suit have not been made respondents in appeal. In my view that the dispute was purely between private parties and the official respondents were not necessary parties. The Appellate Court did not give its decision on merits of the claim of the respective parties and only on technical grounds stated above dismissed the appeal. These technicalities could have been cured through amending the title of the appeal subject to the plea of limitation, if any. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the Appellate Court for decision of appeal on merits after amended title of memo of appeal is filed. This revision application stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./W-4/K Order accordingly.