2002 PLP 1862 (CLC)
NAZIR AHMAD and 8 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. MAJEEDA BEGUM and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1862 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sair Ali, J |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD and 8 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. MAJEEDA BEGUM and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1862 (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 2002 PLP 1862 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1862 (CLC) (NAZIR AHMAD and 8 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. MAJEEDA BEGUM and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz for Appellants.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O. VII, R.11‑‑‑]Rejection of plaint‑‑‑Trial Court after dismissal of plaintiff's application for restoration of suit, had also rejected plaint upon application of the defendants‑‑‑Counsel for defendants appearing at pre-admission stage of appeal had conceded that order passed by Trial Court was illegal to the extent of rejection of plaint and stated that application for rejection of plaint filed by defendants be dismissed as withdrawn‑‑‑In view of conceding statement of the counsel for defendants and withdrawal of application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., application for rejection of plaint would stand dismissed as withdrawn and observations qua rejection of plaint in order of Trial Court would stand deleted and modified.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Nawaz for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2002. Through this F.A.O., appellants have only challenged second part of the impugned order, dated 1‑3‑2001 by which, after dismissal of plaintiff's application for restoration of the suit, plaint was also rejected upon application of respondents Nos.2 to
5. The appellants before this Court were defendants in the suit, but claimed to be aggrieved of the rejection of plaint.
2. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 has appeared at pre admission stage and conceded that the impugned order, dated 1‑3‑2001 was illegal to the extent of rejection of the plaint. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the said respondents that application for rejection of ' plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. was moved by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and the same be dismissed as withdrawn in view of non‑restoration of the suit through impugned order. It is further stated that respondents other than respondents Nos.2 to 5 are not relevant to the controversy relating to rejection of plaint because application thereto was only filed by respondents Nos.2 to
5. As such, presence of other respondents is not essential. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that respondents other than respondents Nos.2 to 5 are not relevant.
3. In view of the conceding statement of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and withdrawal of application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., the said application for rejection of plaint shall stand dismissed as withdrawn and the observations qua the rejection of plaint in the impugned order, dated 1‑3‑2001, shall stand deleted and modified. This first appeal is, therefore, accepted in above terms against rejection of plaint. Above observed modification in the impugned order, dated 1‑3‑2001 shall stand incorporated. Parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./N‑201/L Order accordingly.