1989 PLP 1634 (SCMR)
Mst. ZAINAB BIBI Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM FATIMA Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1634 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid lqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZAINAB BIBI Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM FATIMA Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1634 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1634 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid lqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1634 (SCMR) (Mst. ZAINAB BIBI Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM FATIMA Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Clhani, Advocate instructed by Inayat Hussain. Advocrtle on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989.
- Muhammad Clhani, Advocate instructed by Inayat Hussain. Advocrtle on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 6th March, 1958 of the Lahore High Court in C.R. No.261-D of 1984).
OXIV, R.1--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Contention that Trial Court fell into error when it examined the merits of suit without framing the issues thereon, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had submitted her written settlement--Petitioner having herself absented after filing the written statement, held, could not raise complaint of the type--Petitioner was also not prejudiced its suit filed against her was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Clhani, Advocate instructed by Inayat Hussain. Advocrtle on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH,J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal by the High Curt, of her Civil Revision. It has ariscn out of a dispute over it property which admittedly belonged to the mother of the parties herein‑‑they are sisters inter se. The petitioner's claim is that the suit property had been sold to her by the mother and thus had excluded to that extent, the respondent. It wits challenged by the mother, now deceased, through a civil suit. The Petitioner, as stated by the learned counsel, filed a written statement but she subsequently absented. The trial Court examined the case on merits without framing the issues thereon and dismissed the suit. After the filing of the appeal the plaintiff (mother of the parties) died. The respondent was implcaded its an heir. The appeal was allowed by the District Court on merits and the suit was decreed against the petitioner. Her civil revision having been dismissed she hits now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel stated that although points regarding valuation and court‑fee as also the technical objection in respect of form of the suit, were raised but the same are not pressed because of the recent developments in the precedent law regarding those technicalities. Ire however vehemently contended that the trial Court fell into error when it examined the merits of the suit without framing the issues thereon, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had submitted her written statement. The argument to say the least is extraordinary The petitioner having herself absented, could not raise complaint of the type as afore noticed. Be that as it may she was not at all prejudiced. Suit filed against her was also dismissed. There is no complaint that the appeal and civil revision filed by the petitioner wcre not properly heard and disposed of. In our view the petitioner has not at all been prejudiced even in these proceedings. After hearing the learned counsel we feel satisfied that the decision of the appeal and the revisional Court against the petitioner is unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./Z‑62/S Leave refused.