1968S909 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 1968S909 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968S909 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968S909 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968S909 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Azizuddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Alt Akbar, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-In this case the respondent had brought a suit against the petitioners and one other person claiming to be a transferee of the property in suit from the Settlement Department. The relief asked for was one of possession and share of the proceeds of the business carried on by the petitioners and their third associate. It appears that the P. T. O. issued in favour of the plaintiff respondent was withdrawn by the Settlement authorities while the suit was pending. The suit was therefore, withdrawn with the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit, if necessary. Later however, instead of filing one suit against the three persons concerned, the plaintiff-respondent brought two suits, one against the two peti tioners and the second against their associate. The later confessed judgment and there was a decree against him. The suit against the present petitioners, it was objected, could not be proceeded with as the permission granted by the Court while withdrawing the first suit covered only one suit and not two suits. This is a mere technicality which prima facie does not appear to be sanctioned by Order XXIII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any event, even if there is some force in this technical objection that two suits should not have been filed, we do not consider it to be a fit case for special leave to appeal from the order directing the suit to proceed against the petitioners. All defences are open to them on the merits and they should fight out the case on the merits. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.