2009 PLP 218 (MLD)
CONTROLLER (NOW DIRECTOR), VALUATION DEPARTMENT, KARACHI and 2 other's — Applicants Versus Messrs NADEEM ENTERPRISE, through Proprietor — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 218 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | CONTROLLER (NOW DIRECTOR), VALUATION DEPARTMENT, KARACHI and 2 other's — Applicants Versus Messrs NADEEM ENTERPRISE, through Proprietor — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 218 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 218 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 218 (MLD) (CONTROLLER (NOW DIRECTOR), VALUATION DEPARTMENT, KARACHI and 2 other's — Applicants Versus Messrs NADEEM ENTERPRISE, through Proprietor — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 79
Suit against the Government
Counsel for defendants had contended that suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, who were government functionaries; and that it was duty of the plaintiff to join Federal Government as well Central Board of Revenue as defendant in the suit and that both the courts below had ignored that fact
Counsel had stated that the suit by the original court should not have been entertained and decree passed without joining the Federal Government as party was of no consequence
Contentions raised by the counsel for defendants needed consideration
Revision application was admitted to regular hearing
Execution proceedings were stayed.
Judgment & Decree
KH. NAVEED AHMED, J.
Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions. 3 &
4. The learned counsel has contended that the suit was filed by Messrs Nadeem Enterprises against the applicants, who are Government functionaries. He states that it was duty of the plaintiff to join Federal Government as well as the Central Board of Revenue as defendants in the suit. He states that both the courts below have ignored this fact. In the original suit Federal Government officials were sued in contravention of section 79 of C.P.C., which says that the Federal Government officials should be sued by joining Federal Government as a party. Section 79, C.P.C. is reproduced hereunder-- "Section 79.
Suits by or against the Government.
In a suit by or against the [Government] the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be
(a) in the case of a suit by or against the Federal Government, [Pakistan] (b) in the case of a suit by or against a Provincial Government, the [Province]; and" In view of the above the learned counsel states that the suit by the original Court should have not been entertained and decree passed without joining the Federal Government as a party is of no consequence. Contention raised by the learned counsel needs consideration. This revision application is admitted to regular hearing, notice to other side, the meantime execution proceedings are stayed. Office is directed to call R&P and fix the matter for hearing in the next month. H.B.T./C-17/K Order accordingly.