1989 PLP 2040 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another‑‑Petitioners, Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and 3 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2040 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another‑‑Petitioners, Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and 3 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2040 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2040 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2040 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another‑‑Petitioners, Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and 3 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Hanif Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mohammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑10‑1985, of the Lahore High Court, in R. F. A. No. 36 of 1983). ‑‑‑O.Vl, R.17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Trial Court having allowed amendment of plaint failed to give opportunity to defendants to submit written statement‑‑Such plea having been conceded by the plaintiff High Curt remanded case for correcting the error‑‑Defendant's contention that there was no need for amendment of written statement and that High Court judgment accepting defendant's appeal and remanding the case was liable to be set aside; was repelled being without any force‑‑Facts and circumstances of case fully justified High Court's acceptance of the contention of the petitioner/defendant's counsel who was their duly constituted agent‑‑Appeal being devoid of merit was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side in a suit for declaration; against the acceptance by the High Court, of their appeal and consequential remand order for further proceedings by the trial Court.
2. One of the grievances of the petitioners in the grounds of appeal submitted before the High Court, was that the respondent/plaintiff side had been permitted to amend their plaint subject to conditions including that the petitioners (appellants before the High Court) would be entitled to submit amended written statement to the amended plaint. And that the trial Court had in that round failed to fulfil this condition, therefore, the decree passed against the petitioners was liable to be set aside on account of this "serious legal error". It was also asserted that the act of the trial Court in this behalf was against the principles of natural justice. Instances were, also given in Para 4 of the grounds of appeal to demonstrate how the petitioners had suffered (prejudice) on account of lack of opportunity to them to submit an amended written statement.
3. It appears from the narration in the impugned judgment that this very argument was repeated before the High Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It was conceded to by the learned counsel for the respondents, Accordingly the plea having been accepted the petitioners' appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for correcting the error. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an extraordinary plea before us. He contended that there was no need for amendment of the written statement. Accordingly the High Court judgment accepting the petitioners' appeal and remanding the case was liable to be corrected/set aside.
4. We do not agree with him. The facts and circumstances of the case particularly those noted above fully justify the High Court's, acceptance of the` contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners whose was duly constituted agent of the petitioners. The plea raised by the learned counsel is, even on its face, without any force. There is nothing to discuss it any further. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. A.A./M‑1078/S Leave refused.