2006 PLP 860 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias BHOOLA — Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN BABOO and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 860 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias BHOOLA — Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN BABOO and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 860 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 860 (CLC)?
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: 2006 PLP 860 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias BHOOLA — Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN BABOO and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Sarwar for Petitioner.
- Ch. Javed Rasool for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.II, R.2
Suit having been concurrently decreed by two Courts below, defendant had filed revision against said concurrent decrees
Contention of defendant was that matter in dispute having been determined in earlier suit filed by plaintiff, present suit was barred under O.II, R.2, C.P.C.
Present suit in which possession of suit property was sought, being based on cause of action different to earlier suit, present suit was not barred by O.II, R.2, C.P.C.
Such aspect of case had been duly considered by Courts below holding that present suit was maintainable
Impugned decrees were consistent with record
Defendant being unable to advert to any jurisdictional error or other infirmity in impugned judgments, same could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court dated 19-10-1995 and of the learned lower Appellate Court, dated 27-12-2000, whereby a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed.
2. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgments and need not therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. The petitioner/defendant claimed that the matter in contention had been determined in an earlier suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, namely, Mumtaz Hussain Baboo. It was argu&d that the present suit was barred under Order II, rule 2, C.P.C.
4. I have gone through the judgment (Exh.P.1) dated 18-6-1988 rendered in the earlier suit. I have also considered the contents of the plaint in the present suit. The allegation therein is that the petitioner took forcible possession of the disputed property measuring 2-1/2 Marlas after the decision in the earlier suit and it is for this reason that the present suit was filed claiming possession from the petitioner.
5. The petitioner relied on an agreement between him and Fazal Din, father of the respondent/plaintiff, in support of his possession. I have examined the said agreement (Exh.P.4) dated 22-7-1981. It is clear from the earlier judgment (Exh.P.1) that the father of the respondent was held to have no right in the property. Secondly, the agreement (Exh.P.4) itself indicates that possession was to be delivered on 15-10-1981 after payment by the petitioner, of the sums of money specified in the agreement. The earlier suit was filed on 8-10-1981. This itself was sufficient to show that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit property when the earlier suit was filed. The second suit, which seeks possession of the suit property, was, therefore, based on a different cause of action. It follows that the second suit, out of which the present petition arises, was not barred by Order II, rule 2, C.P.C.
6. The above aspects of the case have been duly considered by the learned Courts below by holding that the present suit was maintainable. The learned Courts have also taken note of the fact that a temporary injunction directing status quo to be maintained, had been issued in the earlier litigation on 8-10-1981.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find the impugned decrees to be consistent with the record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M-123/L Revision dismissed