1994 PLP 940 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus IRSHAD BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 940 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus IRSHAD BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 940 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 940 (MLD)?
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: 1994 PLP 940 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus IRSHAD BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Tasawar Hussain Bokhari for Petitioner.
- (5) Whether permission of Advocate-General was necessary for filing the present suit? OPD
Headnotes / Summary
O.XIV, Rr.l & 2
Application for deciding first issue of jurisdiction of Court as a preliminary issue
On filing suit by plaintiff, written statement was filed by defendant and issues were framed by Court-- Very first issue being whether Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and try suit, defendant moved application under O.XIV, C.P.C. for decision on that issue first as a preliminary issue which application .was dismissed by Court-- Defendant had challenged decision of Trial Court by filing 'revision before High Court contending that Trial Court in dismissing his application had exercised its jurisdiction illegally as it was duty of Court to first determine question of its jurisdiction
In suit which was filed more than twenty years prior to filing of application for deciding preliminary issue first, evidence was still to be recorded and that fact alone was sufficient to reject application of defendant
Question in suit was not purely legal
In order to appreciate grievance of defendant, evidence was necessary
Even otherwise, had application of defendant been accepted, it would have resulted in final disposal of suit for another decade or so.
Judgment & Decree
The brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for a declaration against the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to
4. The suit was decreed ex parte on 14-7-1977. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex parte decree. The same was dismissed vide order, dated 2-3-1985. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Lahore who accepted it vide judgment, dated 19-7-1988. Then respondent No.1 filed a revision petition in this Court. The same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27-3-1993. It seems that in the meanwhile the defendants filed written-statement and the learned trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues on 25-10-1988:
(1) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? OPD (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. (3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi for the present suit? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has come to this Court with unclean hands? OPD (5) Whether permission of Advocate-General was necessary for filing the present suit? OPD (6) Whether order, dated 25-5-1965 passed by the defendant No.1 is illegal and void? OPP, (7) Relief. The petitioner moved an application under Order XIV of the C.P.C. -for decision on issue No.1 as a preliminary issue. The respondent No.1, the plaintiff contested this application. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments, proceeded to dismiss this application vide order, dated 24-11-1993. Hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that it was the duty of the trial Court to first determine the question of its jurisdiction. It is argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally. In this behalf, he has placed reliance on the cases reported jurisdiction illegally. Abdullah Khan v. Mst. Abbasi Begum and another 1982 CLC 1956 and as Muhammad Saleem v. Hafiz Ahmad Din PLD 1975 Lah. 425.
3. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record and the precedent cases. The suit was instituted in March, 1973 and still evidence is to be recorded. This fact alone was sufficient to reject the petition filed on 14-10-1993. The question in the present case is not purely legal. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, evidence is necessary. The action is only protected which is justified by law. In this behalf, reference can be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Ch. Muhammad Anwar v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1963 (W.P.) Lah.
109. In the present case, the orders off respondents Nos.2 and 4 are based on compromise between the petitioner and the respondent No.l. Had the application of the petitioner been accepted, it would have resulted in delay in the final disposal of the suit for another decision or so.
4. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and in any case before 31-3-1994 even if it has to hold day-to-day proceedings. H.B.T./M-1408/L Revision dismissed.