2006 PLP 2933 (YLR)
NASIR MAHMOOD — Appellant Versus Agha MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2933 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Hamid Farooq and Syed Hamid Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | NASIR MAHMOOD — Appellant Versus Agha MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2933 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2933 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq and Syed Hamid Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2933 (YLR) (NASIR MAHMOOD — Appellant Versus Agha MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 96---Regular First Appeal---Appeal against review order---Maintainability---Respondent raised preliminary objection that since appellant's review petition was dismissed through impugned judgment, appeal was incompetent---Additional District Judge as Trial Court through impugned composite judgment, besides deciding other matters, passed decree for recovery against appellant---Appeal against said judgment and decree, lay to the High Court---Appeal against judgment and decree of Trial Court was competent and maintainable---Objection of counsel for respondent, in that regard was repelled and appeal was directed to be fixed on specified date.
- Mian Muhammad Waheed Akhtar for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised preliminary objection that since appellant's review petition was dismissed, through the impugned judgment, therefore, the present appeal is incompetent. Learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfactorily refute the said contention.
- 4. In view whereof, it is held that the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-3-2003, is competent and maintainable. The objection of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in this regard in hereby repelled.
Headnotes / Summary
Zafar Iqbal Chowhan for other Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised preliminary objection that since appellant's review petition was dismissed, through the impugned judgment, therefore, the present appeal is incompetent. Learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfactorily refute the said contention.
2. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the learned Additional District Judge, through passing the impugned composite judgment has decided the following matters: (i) Review petition and an application for amendment of the review petition, both filed by the appellant/defendant No.1, were dismissed. (ii) Petition for leave to defend and two miscellaneous applications, filed by defendants Nos.2 to 4 for amendment of leave to defend and application for amendment were disposed of being infructuous. (iii) Respondent No.1/plaintiff's suit for recovery was decreed against the appellant on account on non-fulfilment of the condition, subject to which he was granted leave to defend the suit. (iv) Plaint to the extent of defendants Nos.2 to 4 was rejected.
3. It is evident from the above, that besides deciding other matters, the learned trial Court passed the decree for recovery against the appellant. The decree sheet was also drawn, which, inter alia, states that the suit of the plaintiff "is hereby stands decreed in favour of plaintiff against defendant No.1's suit was decreed against the appellant, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 4-3-2003, against which the appellant has filed the appeal in hand. Appeal against the said judgment and decree lies to this Court."
4. In view whereof, it is held that the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-3-2003, is competent and maintainable. The objection of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in this regard in hereby repelled.
5. Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing on 18-4-2005. H.B.T./N-66/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.