2013 PLP 431 (MLD)
ASGHAR ALI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 431 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ through L.Rs. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 431 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 431 (MLD)?
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: 2013 PLP 431 (MLD) (ASGHAR ALI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ through L.Rs. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioners.
- Abdul Wahid Chaudhry and Mazhar Hayat for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XV, R.1
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Admission of claim of plaintiff by defendants and filing conceding written statement
Application for decreeing suit in the light of conceding written statement
Eight defendants appeared before the Trial Court and admitting claim of the plaintiff filed their conceding written statement
Application of other fifteen defendants filed for impleading them as defendant in the suit was allowed and they were impleaded
Application by the plaintiffs under O.XV, R.1, C.P.C. for decreeing the suit against eight defendants as they had filed their conceding statements, was dismissed by the Trial Court and revisional court
Plaintiffs filed application under O.XV, R.1, C.P.C. after a lapse of six years and had not challenged the order, by way of which fifteen defendants who had not filed conceding written statements, were impleaded as party in the suit
No doubt after the admission of eight defendants, Trial Court might pass a decree in the suit straightaway on application under O.XV, R.1, C.P.C., but said application was filed at a belated stage and provision of O.XV, R.1, C.P.C. was not mandatory in nature
Discretion vested with the court to pass a decree, therefore, satisfaction of the court was necessary
No illegality or material irregularity was found in the impugned orders passed by the courts below
Both courts below having rightly exercised their jurisdiction while deciding the matter in issue, constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration against respondents Nos.1 to 8 to the effect that they have purchased a share out of khata No.19 measuring 40 Kanals of land from respondents Nos.1 to 8 for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000 and they are owners of above land. Respondents Nos.1 to 8 appeared before the learned trial court and admitted the claim of the petitioners while filing their conceding written statement. Thereafter respondents Nos.9 to 23 submitted an application before the learned trial court to the effect that they have also share in khata No.19 and as such they be allowed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The said application was allowed. Learned trial court vide order dated 22-5-1997 permitted the respondents Nos.9 to 23 to be impleaded as defendants. After that petitioners filed an application under Order XV Rule 1 C.P.C. on 16-12-2004 for decreeing the suit against respondents Nos.1 to 8 as they have filed their conceding written statement to the effect that they have no objection if the suit of the petitioners is decreed. Learned trial court dismissed the said application vide order dated 16-12-2004. Petitioners preferred a revision petition against the said order, which also met with the same fate on 7-7-2005 by the learned Revisional Court. Feeling aggrieved the abovesaid orders petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders are against law and facts and also without lawful authority. Further argued that when the conceding written statement of the original vendors were on the file, then the learned trial court was bound to decree the suit straightway under Order XV Rule 1, C.P.C. but both the courts below have failed to apply their judicious mind while deciding the matter in issue.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners filed the application under Order XV Rule 1, C.P.C. after elapse of 6 years. Further argued that respondents Nos. 9 to 23 have been impleaded as party in the main suit who are contesting the same and the petitioners have not challenged the said order.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Undeniably, petitioners filed the application under Order XV, Rule 1, C.P.C. after elapse of six years. They have also not challenged the order dated 22-5-1997 by way of which respondents Nos.9 to 23 were impleaded as party in the suit. No doubt, after the admission of defendants Nos.1 to 8 learned trial court might pass a decree in the suit of the petitioners straightway on the application of the petitioners under Order XV, Rule 1, C.P.C. but the said application was filed at belated stage. Moreover the Provision of Order XV, Rule 1 is not mandatory in nature. There is discretion vesting with the court to pass a decree. Satisfaction of the courts is necessary. The court must be satisfied as to the good faith and identity of the parties. Reliance is placed upon 2007 SCMR 1684. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Both the courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction while deciding the matter in issue.
6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the instant writ petition and the same is dismissed. However learned trial court is directed to decide the main suit within three months positively after recording the evidence of both the parties. HBT/A-49/L Petition dismissed.