2007 PLP 1540 (YLR)
ABDUL RASHEED — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1540 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHEED — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1540 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1540 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1540 (YLR) (ABDUL RASHEED — Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Petitioner.
- Akhtar Masud Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner brought a suit for the possession against the respondent, with regard to the suit property and during the pendency thereof, made a statement that he would like to file an ejectment application and thus intends to withdraw the suit, but sought the permission to file a fresh proceedings; the learned Court vide order dated 26-12-2004, passed the following order: - Thereafter, the petitioner brought the second suit for the possession, the plaint whereof has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28-3-2006, on the ground that the petitioner in fact had asked for filing of an ejectment application and therefore, cannot bring a suit for the possession; this has also been the view of the Court of appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding as to the request for the filing of the ejectment application, the Court vide order dated 16-12-2004, has permitted the petitioner to bring a fresh suit and it is the order, which is to be considered and not the statement of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent though has refuted the above argument, but has not been able to convince, if the bar contained in Order XXIII, rule 1, C.P.C. on account of which the impugned orders were passed by the two Courts below regarding the rejection of the plaint, is attracted to the instant matter because it is the order of the Court dated 16-12-2004, which has to be looked at and not the statement of the petitioner, thus both the Courts below have fallen in error in passing the impugned orders, which cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. In the light of the above, by allowing this petition, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for decision afresh in accordance with law. H.B.T./A-26/L Case remanded.