1995 PLP 269 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian NOOR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 269 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian NOOR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 269 (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 1995 PLP 269 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 269 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian NOOR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.10, 11 & 115‑‑‑Stay of suit ‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Trial Court had observed that question whether suit was liable to be stayed under Ss.10 & 11, C.P.C. could be decided after framing issue in that respect‑‑‑View taken by Trial Court not suffering from any illegality, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Petitioner/defendant was ordered to file written statement and in case of objection with regard to stay of suit was raised, Trial Court would frame preliminary issue on said point before framing any other issue on merits and would decide same after affording opportunity of hearing to parties. Hasnat Ahmad Khan, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss.10, 11 & 115‑‑‑Stay of suit ‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Trial Court had observed that question whether suit was liable to be stayed under Ss.10 & 11, C.P.C. could be decided after framing issue in that respect‑‑‑View taken by Trial Court not suffering from any illegality, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Petitioner/defendant was ordered to file written statement and in case of objection with regard to stay of suit was raised, Trial Court would frame preliminary issue on said point before framing any other issue on merits and would decide same after affording opportunity of hearing to parties. Hasnat Ahmad Khan, Advocate. The case of the petitioners/defendants was that .the question as to whether Mst. Mehran was sister of Fateh Din or not had already been decided in the previous round of litigation in which an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. Their prayer before the trial Court through application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C, was that since in the previous round of litigation it had been decided that Mst. Mehran was sister of Fateh Din therefore in the present suit the respondent/plaintiff who is son of Muhammad Sharif (Muhammad Sharif being party in the previous round of litigation) could not claim a declaration as prayed for that Mst. Mehran was not the sister of Fateh Din.
2. The trial Court has observed (that the question whether the present suit is liable to be stayed under sections 10 and 11, C.P.C. could be decided after framing issue. The view taken by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality.
3. The petitioner shall file written statement. In case any objection is raised in the written statement about the stay of the suit on the ground that sections 10 and 11 C.P.C. were applicable, the trial Court shall frame preliminary issue on the said point before framing any other issue on merits and after affording opportunity to both the parties the same shall be decided in the first instance.
4. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. H.B.T./M‑1758/L Order accordingly.