1983 PLP 3166 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ‑Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 3166 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ‑Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 3166 (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 1983 PLP 3166 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 3166 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ‑Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kanwar Akhtar Ali for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan Jahanian for Respondent.
- Date of hearing 19th February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ O. VIII, r. 10 & S. 115‑District Judge while accepting appeal against O. VIII, r. 10 passing order "The plaintiff is directed to appear in the learned lower Court on 22nd January, 1983 and the Court is directed to pass decree as prayed for"‑‑‑Held, District Judge should not have given directions to trial Court to pass a decree and should have remanded case for proceeding according to law‑Case sent back to District Judge to re‑write judgment after hearing parties.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ O. VIII, r. 10 & S. 115‑District Judge while accepting appeal against O. VIII, r. 10 passing order "The plaintiff is directed to appear in the learned lower Court on 22nd January, 1983 and the Court is directed to pass decree as prayed for"‑‑‑Held, District Judge should not have given directions to trial Court to pass a decree and should have remanded case for proceeding according to law‑Case sent back to District Judge to re‑write judgment after hearing parties. Kanwar Akhtar Ali for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Hasan Jahanian for Respondent. Date of hearing 19th February, 1983. This revision arises from the order of the learned, District Judge Multan, whereby he on 31st January, 1983 confirmed the order dated 18th April, 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lodhran, whereby the defence of Muhammad Hafeez, petitioner/defendant was struck of under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision in brief, are that Abdul Sattar, respondent No. 1 filed a suit against Muhammad Hafeez, peti tioner, Bodla Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Dunyapur, respondent No. 2 and Faiz Ahmad, respondent No. 3, for the recovery of Rs. 14,801.19 and the case was fixed for filing of the written statement on 22nd December, 1981 on which date the Presiding Officer having been transferred was not present. The case was ultimately adjourned to 18th April, 1982 for filing of written statement. On the failure of the petitioner and others to file written statement the learned Civil Judge passed the following order opinion that‑the learned District Judge should not have given direction to the trial Court to pass a decree and should have remanded the case for proceedings according to law. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside and the case is sent back to the learned District Judge for re‑writing the judgment after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 5th March, 1983. M. A. K. Petition accepted.