1985 PLP 1243 (MLD)
ASHIQ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1243 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, J |
| Parties | ASHIQ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1243 (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 1985 PLP 1243 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1243 (MLD) (ASHIQ HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Saeed Khan Khosa for Petitioners.
- Islam Ali Qureshi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th January, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 96 & 115 and O. XVII, r. 3--Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.9--Suit dismissed for failure to produce evidence--Appeal against such order of dismissal, held, was incompetent and order passed in appeal was nullity in law--Merits of impugned order not gone into by High Court in view of availability of alternate remedy by way of regular suit and pending complaint regarding violation of injunction order--Revision dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Muhammad Asif and others P L D 1964 Pesh. 157 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa for Petitioners. Islam Ali Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th January, 1985. A suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was dismissed by the learned trial Court due to failure of the respondent/plaintiff to produce evidence. This decree of dismissal was, however, set aside in appeal by the learned District Judge vide order dated 3-3-1980. Ashiq Hussain and others, petitioners/ defendants have challenged this judgment passed in appeal in this revision petition on the ground that no appeal lies against decree passed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that appeal is not available against a decree passed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act but adds that revision jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction may not be allowed to be invoked as the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants conceded before the learned District Judge that another opportunity of reasonable duration may be granted to the plaintiff /respondent for adducing evidence. Learned counsel has filed an affidavit of the learned counsel whose concession stands recorded. In the affidavit learned counsel has stated that he did not conceded that another opportunity be given to the appellant /respondent. Learned counsel further added that the concession is otherwise meaningless and consent cannot confer jurisdiction where there is none. He also submitted that as per assertions of the respondent /plaintiff the dispossession occurred in violation of the injunction order passed in pending suit and that the said violation was brought to the notice of the said learned trial Court. Both the learned counsel further agree that the said application complaining violation of the injunction order is still pending and that the parties can prosecute the said application and obtain necessary relief and that regular suit is also available to the plaintiff /respondent.
3. In view of above, no useful purpose will be served by prosecuting the present litigation. The appeal, admittedly, was incompetent and the impugned order as such was nothing but a nullity in law. The impugned order, as such is not binding on the learned trial Court as is held in Muhammad Umar Khan v. Muhammad Asif and others P L D 1964 Pesh.
157. In the circumstances noted above, am not inclined to go into the merits of the order dated 9-12-1979 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for lack of evidence as alternate remedy is available A by way of regular suit for establishing title and recovering possession and as the complainant regarding violation of the injunction order is also pending.
4. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. A. A. Petition dismissed.