1994 PLP 1960 (SCMR)
Railway Headquarters Office‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. MIAN MUHAMMAD SALIM & COMPANY‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1960 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. |
| Parties | Railway Headquarters Office‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. MIAN MUHAMMAD SALIM & COMPANY‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1960 (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 1994 PLP 1960 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1960 (SCMR) (Railway Headquarters Office‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. MIAN MUHAMMAD SALIM & COMPANY‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑6‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 315 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑O.XIV, R. 1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Framing of specific issue by Trial Court alleged to be unnecessary‑‑‑Courts below considering such issue. to be in accordance with relevant averments in plaint and written statement‑‑‑Language of issue concerned when compared with language used in averments in plaint and written statement showed that said issue was not unnecessary‑‑‑Defendant's assertion that written statement having been amended with the permission of Court at an early stage, such amendment would make the issue in question, redundant, was also of no avail for the language in amended written statement justified the framing of issue in question‑‑‑Courts below had correctly found that issue in question was justified on the basis of assertion made in the pleadings; such assertion remaining un altered even after amendment of written statement‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Petition No. 296 of 1992, decided on 6th October, 1992. (On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑6‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 315 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑O.XIV, R. 1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Framing of specific issue by Trial Court alleged to be unnecessary‑‑‑Courts below considering such issue. to be in accordance with relevant averments in plaint and written statement‑‑‑Language of issue concerned when compared with language used in averments in plaint and written statement showed that said issue was not unnecessary‑‑‑Defendant's assertion that written statement having been amended with the permission of Court at an early stage, such amendment would make the issue in question, redundant, was also of no avail for the language in amended written statement justified the framing of issue in question‑‑‑Courts below had correctly found that issue in question was justified on the basis of assertion made in the pleadings; such assertion remaining un altered even after amendment of written statement‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th October, 1992. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑The Federation of Pakistan as defendant in a civil suit, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of its Civil Revision. The grievance made is that there was allegedly an unnecessary issue framed by the trial Court which refused to delete the same on the application of the petitioner; and, the High Court also while affirming the trial Court's decision declined to interfere in its Revisional jurisdiction. We having seen the language of issue concerned and compared it with the language used in the relevant averments in the plaint and the written statement, have not been able to agree with the learned counsel that the issue was unnecessary. His attempt to argue that the written statement having been amended with the permission of the Court at an earlier stage, the amendment made the disputed issue redundant, is also of no avail because the language referred to above in the amended written statement which justified the framing of the disputed issue, remained unaltered. That being so, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. AA./F‑301/S Leave refused.