1991 PLP 776 (SCMR)
Mst. SANIA and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZARJANA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 776 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. |
| Parties | Mst. SANIA and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZARJANA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 776 (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 1991 PLP 776 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 776 (SCMR) (Mst. SANIA and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZARJANA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th March, 1990.
- Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24-10-1988 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Civil Revision No. 379 of 1987).
O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for possession through partition of house was dismissed on account of dismissal of earlier similar suit
Petitioners contended that in a suit for partition cause of action being continuing one, second suit was not barred
Question raised requiring examination, leave to appeal was granted. Keesari Santamma v. Kanumatha Reddi Venkatarama Reddi and others AIR 1935 Mad. 909 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Keesari Santamma v. Kanumatha Reddi Venkatarama Reddi and others AIR 1935 Mad. 909 ref. Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1990. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision in a suit for possession through partition of a house. It was dismissed on account of the dismissal of an earlier similar suit under Order IX, Rule 8, C.P.C. The petitioners having failed in appeal and revision have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel has contended that in a suit for partition the cause of action is continuing one, therefore, a second suit in the circumstances of this case was not barred by Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. He has relied on commentary on C.P.C. by D.F. Mulla on the afore-noticed provision as also on Keesari Santamma v. Kanumatha Reddi Venkatarama Reddi and others AIR 1935 Mad.
909. Question raised requires examination. Leave so appeal is granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof. H.B.T./S‑541/S Leave granted.