2009 PLP 1134 (CLC)
SUMERA HAMEED NAZLI — Appellant Versus FARMAN ALI and 9 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1134 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SUMERA HAMEED NAZLI — Appellant Versus FARMAN ALI and 9 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1134 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1134 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1134 (CLC) (SUMERA HAMEED NAZLI — Appellant Versus FARMAN ALI and 9 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Anwar Mubeen Ansari for Respondent No.1.
- Syed Muhammad Ali Gillani for Respondent No.3.
- 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 have opposed by contending that according to paras.2 and 6 of the plaint impugned transaction allegedly having taken place between the appellant and her mother is that of an agreement and on the basis of an agreement a declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act could not be granted, thus impugned order is in accordance with law.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96 & O.VII, R.11 Suit for declaration
Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration that she was leasehold rights holder apart from other prayers
On filing application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, Trial Court rejected plaint
Contention of the plaintiff was that sale in her favour having already been completed, declaration on the basis of said sale could be sought by her
Defendants on the other hand had contended that impugned transaction allegedly having taken place between the plaintiff and her mother was that of an agreement; and on basis of an agreement declaration under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 could not be granted
It could not be so lightly presumed in view of wordings of sale document that said document was merely an agreement and that the element of sale had not yet completed
Case did not attract provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.
Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for its disposal in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit seeking declaration that she is leasehold rights holder apart from other prayers. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an application before the learned trial Court under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint which was contested by the appellant. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 25-2-2003 rejected the plaint, same is being assailed through instant appeal.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that sale in favour of the appellant had already completed on 21-6-1999, therefore, a declaration on the basis of said sale could be sought by the appellant. Transaction of the said date cannot be said to be an agreement without recording evidence and examination of the said document.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 have opposed by contending that according to paras.2 and 6 of the plaint impugned transaction allegedly having taken place between the appellant and her mother is that of an agreement and on the basis of an agreement a declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act could not be granted, thus impugned order is in accordance with law.
4. We have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. In para.2 of the plaint appellant had claimed to be leasehold rights holder on the basis of following words:-- The words used, in the above quoted para have two different aspects; one is of "(Iqrar Nama) and the other is of "(Takmeel-e-Baih)". It has yet another aspect if it is read as a whole as "(Iqrar nama Takeel-e-Baih)". All the three angles of looking at the said phrases bring different results on the suit, therefore, it could not be so lightly presumed that said document was merely an agreement and the element of sale has not yet completed. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the case did not attract provisions of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. at this stage. Resultantly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 25-2-2003 and remand the case to learned trial Court for its disposal in accordance with law. Before parting, it may be observed that any observation made in this order shall not prejudice the case of either party at the trial. Parties are directed to appear before learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan on 29-4-2009, who may hear the case himself or may entrust the same to any Court of competent jurisdiction. C.M. No.439-C-2009, C.M. No.440-C-2009.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press these applications. Dismissed as not pressed. H.B.T./S-84/1 Case remanded.