1989 PLP 1284 (MLD)
BUNDU KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJEED‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1284 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | BUNDU KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJEED‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1284 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1284 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1284 (MLD) (BUNDU KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJEED‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asar Hussain for Petitioner.
- Zahid Marghoob for Respondent.
- Date of hearing. 29th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑OXV11, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Adjournment‑‑Application to 'recall order disallowing adjournment‑‑Application for withdrawal of amount of rent deposited during pendency of revision was filed by respondent‑--Petitioner's counsel was on general adjournment and this fact was brought to notice of Court but case was not adjourned on ground that since case was of year 1980, general adjournment did not cover any case prior to year 1982‑‑Application of respondent for withdrawal of amount was granted. ‑‑‑O.I, R.10 & S.115‑‑Application by intervenor for becoming a party to revision which stood already disposed of‑‑intervenor was neither a party to suit nor in appeal or revision application‑‑Application by intervenor refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑O.I, R.10 & S.115‑‑Application by intervenor for becoming a party to revision which stood already disposed of‑‑intervenor was neither a party to suit nor in appeal or revision application‑‑Application by intervenor refused. Muhammad Asar Hussain for Petitioner. Zahid Marghoob for Respondent. Date of hearing. 29th August, 1988. By this Order I intend to dispose of the above two applications as they contain the same prayer as to the recalling the order dated 9‑8‑1987 passed by me. It seems that C.M.A. No. 462/87 had come up for hearing before me on 9‑8‑1987, which application was filed by the respondent for the withdrawal of the amount deposited during the pendency of the above revision application. The learned counsel for the applicant was on general adjournment and this fact was brought to my notice but I did not adjourn the case on the ground that since the A case of 1980, the general adjournment did not cover any case prior to the year 1982 and thus I granted the above application pf the respondent. It seems that the application was of 1987, which was fixed for hearing and there was no case of 1980 pending then. Since the Advocate for the applicant was granted general adjournment he was not supposed to be present on the date of hearing nor his client. There seems to be error apparent on the face of the order. I would, therefore, allow the above application and recall my order dated IC 9‑8‑1987 and would fix the C.M.A. No. 402 of 1987 for hearing on 4‑9‑1987. Admittedly the intervenor was not a party to the suit nor in the appeal or in the above revision application. The above application for becoming a party to the above revision application which stands already disposed of misconceived. However, it was urged by Mr. Muhammad Asar Hussain that the application for the withdrawal of the amount is a new proceeding and. therefore, the intervenor is entitled to come forward and to make the above application. The above contention is devoid of any force. The amount was deposited in the above revision application and the application for withdrawal of the above J rent cannot be said to be a new proceeding. M.Y.H./B‑109/K Order accordingly.