1992 PLP 543 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 543 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 543 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 543 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 543 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑OXVII, R. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Closing of plaintiff's evidence except statement of one of the plaintiffs and documentary evidence‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order of Trial Court regarding application of OXVII, R. 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. was not correct, for suit should have been decided forthwith after applying provision of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.‑‑‑Plaintiff's evidence having been closed, statement of one of the plaintiffs on next date of hearing was not warranted‑‑‑Order passed under provision of OXVII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was thus, erroneous and same was quashed‑‑‑Trial Court was directed to receive amended plaint on specified date and after having received written statement, would give one date to plaintiffs to produce their evidence and dispose of case expeditiously.
- Sh. Inayat Ali for petitioners.
- Ch. Bashir for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115)‑ ‑‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.17‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 53‑‑‑Sale mutation challenged in suit‑‑ Plaintiff's proposed amendment in plaint rejected by Trial Court, was that mutation in question, was in violation of M.L.R. 115‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Proposed amendment that mutation in question, was in violation of M.L.R. 115 being a legal plea should have been allowed‑‑‑Trial Court's order declining to amend plaint was set aside and plaintiff was allowed to amend his plaint with regard to mutation being in violation of M.L.R. 115. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑OXVII, R. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Closing of plaintiff's evidence except statement of one of the plaintiffs and documentary evidence‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order of Trial Court regarding application of OXVII, R. 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. was not correct, for suit should have been decided forthwith after applying provision of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.‑‑‑Plaintiff's evidence having been closed, statement of one of the plaintiffs on next date of hearing was not warranted‑‑‑Order passed under provision of OXVII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was thus, erroneous and same was quashed‑‑‑Trial Court was directed to receive amended plaint on specified date and after having received written statement, would give one date to plaintiffs to produce their evidence and dispose of case expeditiously. Sh. Inayat Ali for petitioners. Ch. Bashir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th October, 1988. The plaintiffs/petitioners have challenged sale mutation No.915 attested on 6‑2‑1970 on the ground that no sale even took place and the land had been leased in favour of the respondents.
2. The plaintiffs had filed an application for the amendment of the plaint as they wanted to substitute land measuring 97 Kanals instead of 100 Kanals already inserted in the plaint. The second proposed amendment was that the impugned mutation was in violation of Martial Law Regulation No.115. The learned trial Court allowed the first amendment and about the second one, it has been stated that there is no necessity of the amendment of the same.
3. On the same date, the learned trial Court extended the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. and closed the evidence of the plaintiffs except the statement of one of the plaintiffs and the documentary, evidence.
4. As regards the amendment regarding the plea that the mutation was in violation of M.L.R. 115, it is a legal plea and the amendment should have been allowed. The order of the learned trial Court regarding the application of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. is not correct because the suit should have been decided forthwith after applying Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. In this case the examination of the witnesses of the plaintiffs has been closed and the plaintiffs' were asked to make their own statement on the next date of hearing. This sort of order is erroneous. Muhammad Ismail v. L.D.A. etc. (N.L.R. 1988 Civil 438) also reinforces this view. The order of the learned trial Court dated 27‑9‑1987 is therefore, quashed.
5. Sh. Inayat Ali, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioners has promised to file the amended plaint on the same day and also to produce the remaining evidence of the plaintiffs at the earliest.
6. The learned trial ' Court shall receive the amended plaint on 26‑10‑1988 and after having received written statement, shall give one date to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence and dispose of the case expeditiously. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the amendment is allowed and the direction made under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. is quashed. The writ petition succeeds and stands disposed of. I make no order as to costs. The file of this case should be sent to the learned trial Court immediately. AA./M‑1/L Order accordingly.