1990 PLP 1019 (SCMR)
Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KANEEZ FATIMA and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1019 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KANEEZ FATIMA and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1019 (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 1990 PLP 1019 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1019 (SCMR) (Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KANEEZ FATIMA and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmed Waheed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14‑9‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No. 145 of 1986). .
Judgment & Decree
Ahmed Waheed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a suit for declaration and possession; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Regular Second Appeal. The learned District Court while accepting the respondents' First Appeal had held that the petitioners' suit was barred by the provisions contained in Order 11, Rule 2, C.P.C. because of the rejection of their plaint in an earlier suit filed by them in respect of the same subject‑matter. The High Court having affirmed the first appellate order, leave to appeal has now been sought. Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the earlier suit was not decided on merits, the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Be that as it may, he further argued that Order 11, Rule 2, C.P.C. did not apply to the present suit amongst others for the reasons that the subject‑matter and/or cause of action of both the suits could not be treated as the same. These and the other questions raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. Appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents which would be necessary for disposal of the appeal. H.B.T./R‑136/S Leave granted.