2010 PLP 358 (YLR)
GULZAR NATHANI — Plaintiff Versus NAEEM AHMAD — Defendant
| Citation | 2010 PLP 358 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Amir Hani Muslim, J |
| Parties | GULZAR NATHANI — Plaintiff Versus NAEEM AHMAD — Defendant |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 358 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 358 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 358 (YLR) (GULZAR NATHANI — Plaintiff Versus NAEEM AHMAD — Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Art.84
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.8, 39 & 54
Comparison of signa tures
Scope
Plaintiff had filed suit for possession, cancellation, recovery of articles, damages, permanent injunction against the defendant, whereas defendant had filed suit for specific performance of contract
Both suits were tagged for hearing in order to avoid any conflicting decision
High Court had ample powers to undertake exercise of comparing of signatures; no bar existed either in the Qanun-e-Shahadat, or in any other law which could restrict such comparison
High Court, in the intervening period directed the office to ensure that R&P of the suit filed by the defendant be tagged with the proceedings for hearing on the next date. Ubaird-ur-Rehman for Plaintiff. Syed Muhammad Haider for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--Pursuant to the order dated 2-3-2009, the parties are present in court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that Suit No.978 of 2006 has been filed by the defendant before the Court of VI Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East), for specific performance of contract. It is further submitted that the suit is at the stage of hearing of injunction application as well as for settlement of issue. The plaintiff has filed this suit for cancellation, possession, recovery of articles, damages and permanent injunction in this court against the defendant. Even this suit is fixed for hearing of injunction application and another interlocutory application beside settlement of issues. Office is directed to call the R&P of the Suit No.978 of 2006 from the Court of VI Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East), and tag with the same with this suit for hearing in order to avoid any conflicting decision. Office shall also issue notice to the counsel appearing in the said matter. As far as issue of comparing of signatures by this court is concerned, this court has ample powers to undertake such an exercise. There is no bar either in the Qanoon-e-Shahadat or in any other law which could restrict such comparison. However, the application on this issue would be heard and decided on the next date of hearing. In the intervening period, the office shall ensure that R&P of Suit No.978 of 2006 be tagged with these proceedings for hearing on the next date. H.B.T. /G-35/K Order accordingly.