1983 PLP 1022 (SCMR)
SH. MANZOORUL HAQ-Petitioner Versus BEGUM TASLEEM RIAZ HAMDANI AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1022 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SH. MANZOORUL HAQ-Petitioner Versus BEGUM TASLEEM RIAZ HAMDANI AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1022 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1022 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1022 (SCMR) (SH. MANZOORUL HAQ-Petitioner Versus BEGUM TASLEEM RIAZ HAMDANI AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th February 1983.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27-4-1982, in C. R. 612-D/81).
Art. 185 (3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. II-Rejection of plaint-Order of trial Court rejecting plaint of subsequent suit on ground that an earlier suit of same nature had con cluded under O. VII, r. II, C. P. C.-Held, unexceptionable. Respondents 4 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Respondents 4 in person. Date of hearing: 9th February 1983. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from the order, dated 27‑4‑1982 of Lahore High Court : whereby a civil revision petition was dismissed in limine. Learned counsel states that the petitioner had withdrawn a suit, filed against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for specific performance of a contract of sale (on misrepresentation of facts by them). His subsequent suit for the same purpose failed on account of the rejection of the plaint under Order VII. rule 11, C. P. C. This rejection was disapproved by the appellate Court and the case was remanded. But the High Court later on restored the order of rejection. The petitioner's effect to seek review from the High Court also failed. Seeing no other alternation left, learned counsel further explained, the petitioner filed a fresh suit for the same relief, but, again he had failed on the ground that the petitioner had earlier failed upto the High Court. It has been contended that, subject to the last suit being within limitation and other necessary conditions regarding court‑fee having been satisfied, the plaint could not again be rejected on the ground that an ear lier suit of similar nature had concluded under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. He has urged that the merits should also have been considered. The learned trial Court did notice that the effective relief claimed this time was against‑newly added defendants‑the subsequent innocent vendees for consideration and that the plaint did not disclose a triable cause of action against them. That being so the plaint was rejected. If this position remains irrefutable, then the mere fact that the High Court this time, also relied on the earlier failure of the petitioner, would not make any practical difference. The grievance of the petitioner that his allegations against the vendors with regard to fraud and misrepresentation have not yet been tried, could be the subject‑matter in a suit for damages against them but as held by the learned trial Judge, in the circumstances of this case, it could not be made a basis for relief against the innocent purchasers. With these observations we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine. S. Q. Leave refused.