1998 PLP 2330 (SCMR)
RAB NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2330 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | RAB NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2330 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2330 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2330 (SCMR) (RAB NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Hissamuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1996,
- Mian Hissamuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 2‑11‑1994 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 127 of 1993 and 128 of 1994, respectively). ‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for declaration‑‑ Plaintiff was non‑suited by High Court for his failure to ask for possession as consequential relief‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Contentions raised were that view of High Court to the effect plaintiffs having failed to ask for relief of possession as consequential relief were not found entitled to decree was not tenable, when in fact, they had specifically pleaded in suit that they were owners in possession of land in question and that no adverse findings were recorded by two Courts below while decreeing suit; that in any case plaintiffs could be allowed relief of possession on basis of admitted facts through amendment of plaint‑‑‑Contentions raised would require examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Peshawar High Court in Civil Revisions Nos. 127 and 128 of 1993 has raised the following contentions:-- (1) That the learned Judge in chambers could not non-suit the plaintiffs in the above cases on the sole ground that the petitioners having failed to ask for relief of possession as a consequential relief, were not entitled to a declaratory decree when, in fact, petitioners had specifically pleader in suits that they were the owner in possession of the land and no adverse finding was recorded by the two Courts below. while decreeing the suits. (2) It is also contended that, in any case, the omission on the part of petitioners to ask for relief of possession was a technical error and in view of the evidence in the case, the petitioners could be allowed the relief of possession on the basis of admitted facts in the case through amendment of the plaint even at the stage while the learned Judge was considering the revision application especially in the circumstances of the case when no specific objection was raised before the Trial Court or before the first Appellate Court that the suits as framed were not maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. The above contentions raised by the learned counsel require further examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same. A. A./R-21/S Leave granted.