1987 PLP 2030 (SCMR)
YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus WAZIR ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2030 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus WAZIR ALI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2030 (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 1987 PLP 2030 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2030 (SCMR) (YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus WAZIR ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ahmedullah Faruqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 26‑10‑1986 passed in Suit No. 37 of 1986). ‑‑‑O . XIX, R .2 (2) & O. XL, R . 2‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioner being party to suit, filing written statement and contesting application for appointment of Receiver by filing his counter‑affidavit could not avoid attendance in Court for purpose of cross‑examination on his affidavit upon an order passed by Court in that behalf‑‑Power of Court to pass an order under sub‑rule (2) of R.2 of O. XIX, C . P. C. was undeniable‑‑Petition for leave to appeal, being misconceived, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The respondent filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of certain documents against several defendants, including the petitioner. The petitioner filed his written statement in the suit and pleaded that he had no concern whatsoever with the transaction in question. The plaintiff‑respondent filed an application in the suit under Order XL, Rule 2, C.P.C. for appointment of Receiver in respect of cash deposit in the sum of Rs.15,00,000 already entrusted to the petitioner. The application was opposed by the petitioner by filing his counter‑affidavit. The plaintiff /respondent thereupon made an application under Order XIX, Rule 2, C.P.C. for summoning the petitioner for cross‑examination in relation to the contents of his counter‑affidavit. This application was allowed by the learned High Court as per impugned order and the petitioner was directed to attend the Court for the purpose of cross‑examination on his affidavit. 2. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the above‑mentioned order of the learned High Court, inter alia, on the ground that he was not a party to the documents constituting the basis of the respondent's suit. Be that as it may the petitioner is a party to the suit, had filed his written statement and had further contested the application for appointment of receiver by filing his counter‑affidavit. In the circumstances the petitioner could not avoid the attendance in the Court for the purpose of the cross‑examination on his affidavit as provided by sub‑rule (2) of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure upon an order passed by the Court in this behalf. The power of the Court to pass an order under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIX, C.P.C. is undeniable. The petition is simply misconceived and is dismissed accordingly. S.Q./Y‑8/S Petition dismissed.