1983 PLP 2945 (CLC)
Syed NAUSHAB ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus COL. MEHMOOD KHAN DURANI‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2945 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abaid Ullah Khan, J |
| Parties | Syed NAUSHAB ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus COL. MEHMOOD KHAN DURANI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2945 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 2945 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2945 (CLC) (Syed NAUSHAB ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus COL. MEHMOOD KHAN DURANI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Perwaiz Akhtar for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Shafi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑O. XX, r. 15‑Suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts‑Consent preliminary decree passed‑Commission appointed for taking accounts‑Petitioner subsequently making application that suit should be decided in terms of clause of partnership deed‑Held, application was redundant‑Shares having been fixed by preliminary decree, proceedings of suit would be regulated under the decree and not by deed of partnership‑Petition dismissed. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition seeking revision of the order of the learned Civil Judge, Multan, dated the 15th February, 1984, rejecting the petitioner's application for securing decision in the suit filed by the respondent against him for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts according to clause 5 of the deed of partnership, Exh. D. 1 are these. The parties entered into partnership business and executed partnership deed Exh. D 1, on the 5th July, 1968. In the suit brought by the respondent for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the petitioner consent preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial Court on the 4th December, 1979. The petitioner, as per statement of his counsel, abandoned all other objections raised in the written statement. The respondent's share in the partnership business was settled at one‑third. A commission was issued for taking accounts.
2. On the 1st March, 1980, the petitioner moved application that the suit should be decided according to what was contained in clause 5 of the partnership deed, Exh. D
1. The respondent opposed the application which, according to him, was aimed at getting the preliminary decree amended and removed.
3. It appears that some extraneous matters, not pertinent for the decision of the application, were argued before the learned trial Court. While dismissing the application the learned trial Court remarked that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the valuation of the suit property was still Rs.12,00,000, as originally envisaged in the partner. ship deed, was not tenable and that `its value would be determined on the market value of the same by open auction and not by the terms of Exh. D 1 which indicated only the initial cost of the property.' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has ordered putting the suit property to open auction cannot be accepted at face value because the learned Court has passed no such order. Actually what it intended saying was that the value of the property would be such as it would fetch if it were to be sold by open auction. The petitioner's application before the learned trial Court was just redundant because the share having been fixed by the preliminary decree the course of the proceedings of the suit was to be regulated under the decree and not by clause 5 of the deed of partnership. No case for interference in revision is made out. The petition is dismissed in limine. M. B. A. Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
M. Perwaiz Akhtar for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Shafi for Respondent. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition seeking revision of the order of the learned Civil Judge, Multan, dated the 15th February, 1984, rejecting the petitioner's application for securing decision in the suit filed by the respondent against him for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts according to clause 5 of the deed of partnership, Exh. D. 1 are these. The parties entered into partnership business and executed partnership deed Exh. D 1, on the 5th July, 1968. In the suit brought by the respondent for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the petitioner consent preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial Court on the 4th December, 1979. The petitioner, as per statement of his counsel, abandoned all other objections raised in the written statement. The respondent's share in the partnership business was settled at one‑third. A commission was issued for taking accounts.
2. On the 1st March, 1980, the petitioner moved application that the suit should be decided according to what was contained in clause 5 of the partnership deed, Exh. D
1. The respondent opposed the application which, according to him, was aimed at getting the preliminary decree amended and removed.
3. It appears that some extraneous matters, not pertinent for the decision of the application, were argued before the learned trial Court. While dismissing the application the learned trial Court remarked that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the valuation of the suit property was still Rs.12,00,000, as originally envisaged in the partner. ship deed, was not tenable and that `its value would be determined on the market value of the same by open auction and not by the terms of Exh. D 1 which indicated only the initial cost of the property.' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has ordered putting the suit property to open auction cannot be accepted at face value because the learned Court has passed no such order. Actually what it intended saying was that the value of the property would be such as it would fetch if it were to be sold by open auction. The petitioner's application before the learned trial Court was just redundant because the share having been fixed by the preliminary decree the course of the proceedings of the suit was to be regulated under the decree and not by clause 5 of the deed of partnership. No case for interference in revision is made out. The petition is dismissed in limine. M. B. A. Petition dismissed.