1996 PLP 1110 (SCMR)
Raja HAROON RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. UTILITY STORES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1110 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah. CJ., Muhammad Munir Khan and |
| Parties | Raja HAROON RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. UTILITY STORES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1110 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1110 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah. CJ., Muhammad Munir Khan and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1110 (SCMR) (Raja HAROON RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. UTILITY STORES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1995.
- Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 10‑5‑1994 passed in C.R. No.68/1994). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Rejection of plaint by High Court ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether suit did not suffer from multifariousness of causes of action, in that, respondent (Society) could have been sued for specific performance, recovery of balance sale price and permanent injunction in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; and whether view taken by Trial Court in refusing to reject plaint was based on cogent reason and suffered from no illegality, therefore, was not open to challenge in revisional proceedings before High Court.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN; J.
The petitioner filed a suit- for specific performance of agreement dated 25-3-1991 in respect of sale of land measuring 383 Kanals, 15 Marlas, recovery of the balance sale price/damages and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendants before the learned Civil Judge, Murree. An application was made on behalf of respondent No. l (defendant society) for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia on the grounds that requisite court-fee was not paid, the suit was barred by time and that the petitioner/plaintiff himself violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 1-12-1993 holding that the plaintiff did affix the requisite court-fee valuing Rs.15,
000. As to the other objections, it was held that the same could not be considered without recording evidence. Being aggrieved with this order, the respondent society filed revision petition before the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned judgment with the observation that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., as it did not disclose any cause of action against the respondent society and also for the reason that it was bad for multifariousness.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's suit did not suffer from multifariousness of causes of action, in that, the respondent society could have been sued for specific performance, recovery of the balance sale price and permanent injunction in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. It was further argued that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the view taken by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., was based on cogent reasons and suffered from no illegality, therefore, not open to challenge in revisional proceedings before the High Court.
3. Leave is granted to consider the above questions. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is ordered that the nature of the suit land shall not be altered during the pendency of the appeal. A.A./H-217/S. Leave granted.