2018 PLP 918 (MLD)
Dr. RAEES M. MUSHTAQUE through General Attorney — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Food and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 918 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Dr. RAEES M. MUSHTAQUE through General Attorney — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Food and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 918 (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 2018 PLP 918 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 918 (MLD) (Dr. RAEES M. MUSHTAQUE through General Attorney — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Food and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
O. VII, R. 11
Rejection of plaint after framing of issues
Scope
Issues had been framed and matter was fixed for evidence but
Defendant moved application for rejection of plaint
Trial Court dismissed the application for rejection of plaint but Revisional Court accepted the same
Counsel for the parties agreed that issues had been framed and it would be proper to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to be decided after recording the evidence
Parties were at issues in the present case
Trial Court was to decide the dispute by referring evidence
Impugned order for rejection of plaint was not warranted in circumstances
Order passed by the Revisional Court was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same in accordance with law
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL MALIK GADDI, J.
Through instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.3.2015 passed by the learned District Judge Shaheed Benazirabad in Civil Revision Application No.2 of 2015 whereby the learned District Judge Shaheed Benazirabad after hearing the parties rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in F.C. Suit No.484/2013 filed by the petitioner and set aside the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned 1st-Senior Civil Judge Nawabshah whereby he dismissed the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Perusal of record shows that petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.484 of 2013 for declaration, possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction against the respondents in which written statement was filed by the official respondents, issues were framed and matter was fixed for evidence. The respondents at that juncture filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 18.12.2014, as mentioned above. Today case is fixed for arguments. After arguing at some length learned counsel for the parties have agreed that since in this matter issues have been framed and matter is fixed for evidence, therefore, it would be proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned trial court to decide the suit after recording the evidence of both sides and giving proper opportunity of hearing to them. As observed above, in this matter issues have already been framed and matter is ripped for evidence as stated by the parties counsel, we have perused the pleadings of the parties showing that parties are seriously at issue, therefore, the court instead of rejecting the plaint could decide the dispute by referring to the evidence. Order of rejection of plaint was not warranted in the circumstances. In this regard we are supported with the case of Mst. Kareem Bibi and others v. Zubair and others reported in 1993 SCMR 2039. Consequently the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial court to decide the case in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of three months after receipt of this order. The compliance report be submitted through Additional Registrar of this court. ZC/M-149/Sindh Petition allowed.