1989 PLP 787 (SCMR)
Messrs RIAZ MASOOD & BROTHERS — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 787 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhamad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs RIAZ MASOOD & BROTHERS — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 787 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 787 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhamad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 787 (SCMR) (Messrs RIAZ MASOOD & BROTHERS — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner.
- Malik M. Qayyum, Deputy Advocate-General with Gulzar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th September, 1988.
- Abdul Aziz Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Malik M. Qayyum, Deputy Advocate‑General with Gulzar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22-5-1983 in Regular Second Appeal No.273 of 1982).
0. VII, R. 2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Suit for rendition of accounts--Dismissal of suit on the ground that relief claimed being in respect of a specific amount, keeping in view relationship of parties, same should have been a suit for recovery of specific amount and court-fee should also have been affixed accordingly--Finding upheld by High Court--Petitioner's case being a 6t one to examine the questions raised in petition including the question whether petitioner should not have been allowed/asked to amend his plaint and also to supply deficient court-fee--Judgments of Supreme Court reported as Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan P L D 1985 S C 345 and Zulfiqar Ali v. Province of the Punjab 1986 S C M R 974 would also require examination in the foregoing context--Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances. Zulfiqar Ali v. Province of the Punjab 1980 S C M R 974 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff against the dismissal by the High Court of his Regular Second Appeal. The petitioner had filed a suit for rendition of accounts regarding supply of certain goods and non‑payment of his dues. It was dismissed on the ground that the relief claimed being in respect of a specific amount keeping in view the relationship between the parties, it should have been a suit for recovery of specific amount an4 accordingly court‑fee should also have been affixed. The two learned appellate Courts having affirmed the dismissal of the suit, (leave to appeal has now been sought. After hearing both the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case to examine the questions raised in the petition including the question whether the petitioner should not have been allowed/asked to amend his plaint and also to supply the deficient court‑fee. The judgments of this Court in Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan P L D 1985 S C 345, and Zulfiqar Ali v. Province of the Punjab 1986 S C M R 974 would also require examination in the foregoing context. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal to be heard on the present record with direction to file all necessary additional documents. A.A./R‑27/S Leave to appeal granted.