1994 PLP 1925 (MLD)
ABDUL AZIZ and 14 others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1925 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ and 14 others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1925 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1925 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1925 (MLD) (ABDUL AZIZ and 14 others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Rchman for Petitioners.
- Mehmood Khan for Respondents Nos.3 to 5.
Headnotes / Summary
O.IX, R.13
Application for setting aside ex parte decree which remained pending adjudication for a long time, was sought to be amended later on by filing application in that respect, but that application was concurrently dismissed by Courts below
Order of Court below was of interlocutory character, vires whereof could be challenged by applicants as result of final decision of case
Amendment sought by applicant prima facie would not fall within purview of Order IX, R.13, C.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Briefly, the facts forming the background of this case are; a suit titled "Munir Khan etc. v. Zahoor Khan etc." was pending before Civil Court at Kasur. The petitioners claimed to have acquired the entire suit property through sale and exchange, earlier, and their plea is that the abovesaid suit has been filed by Munir Khan etc. in collusion with the defendants Zahoor Khan etc. so as to adversely affect their rights/interest in the suit property. The petitioners were intentionally not impleaded as party in the suit. The application moved by them for impleadment was turned down by the trial Court. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order refusing to implead them as a party which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide order 15-7-1987. The case was remanded to the trial Court to implead the petitioners as party and then decided the case.
2. On 3-11-1987, the petitioners were impleaded as party and amended plaint was filed. However, before they could be afforded an opportunity of filing a written statement, they were proceeded against ex parte and on the basis of a consenting statement made by the other defendants in the case namely Zahoor Khan etc., on 20-12-1.987 the suit was decreed.
3. An application for setting aside ex parte decree, dated 20-12-1987 was moved by the petitioners before trial Court on 7-4-1988 and a number of grounds were urged in support of the prayer made in the application. This application was contested hotly by the plaintiffs in the suit. It remained pending adjudication for a long time. On 6-7-1991, the petitioners moved an application seeking permission to amend the application for setting aside to ex parte decree, dated 20-11-1987.
4. The learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 22-1-1992 rejected the amendment application. The revision filed was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 27-5-1992. Both the orders are impugned in this writ petition.
5. I am afraid, there is no force in this writ petition. The impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 6-7-1991 is of interlocutory character vires whereof can be challenged by the petitioners as a result of final decision A of the case. The amendment sought, prima facie, does not fall within the purview of Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Be that as it may, no error of jurisdiction has been pointed out so as to justify interference in writ jurisdiction by this IB Court. Dismissed. No costs. H B.T./A-321/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.