2002 PLP 3518 (YLR)
Malik IFTIKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ISMAT ARA and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3518 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | Malik IFTIKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ISMAT ARA and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3518 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3518 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3518 (YLR) (Malik IFTIKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ISMAT ARA and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad Kamboh for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement‑‑‑Application for stay of Proceedings‑‑‑Applicant had‑sought stay‑of proceedings in suit which was at final stage on ground that proceedings were pending before Custodian of Evacuee Property and that most valuable property was involved in case‑‑‑Proceeding could be stayed under S‑
10. C P. C only if matter in issue was sub judice before a competent Court, the parties were same and the Court was competent to grant relief‑‑‑Custodian of Evacuee Property neither could decide matter in issue nor could grant relief claimed in the suit‑‑‑Mere fact that valuable property was involved in the case, would not make any difference or change the course permissible in law‑‑‑Civil Court had rightly declined to stay proceedings. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 12 & 22‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement‑‑‑One had to show the agreement, entitlement to enforce the same and if on the basis of evidence it was proved that there was a valid agreement and its enforcement was not prohibited by law, discretion would have to be exercised under S.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1877.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 12 & 22‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement‑‑‑One had to show the agreement, entitlement to enforce the same and if on the basis of evidence it was proved that there was a valid agreement and its enforcement was not prohibited by law, discretion would have to be exercised under S.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Kamboh for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 4th November, 1999. This revision arises from an order of the learned Civil Judge, whereby an application seeking stay of proceedings in a suit for specific performance was dismissed.
2. During pendency of the suit for specific performance which is presently at final stage the petitioner filed an application for stay of proceedings and to adjourn the suit sine die on the ground that the proceedings were pending before learned Custodian. Application was dismissed on the ground that the matter could not be left pending till the decision of the learned Custodian.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that huge amount is involved and the proceedings should be stayed. It is added the since the question of the character of the property is sub judice before learned Custodian, therefore, the property demand that the suit be adjourned sine die.
4. None of the submissions made have any substance.
5. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement in which one has to show agreement, entitlement to enforce the same and in case on the basis of evidence it is proved that there is a valid agreement and its enforcement is not prohibited by law, the discretion will have to exercised, as per law, under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. Proceedings could be stayed under section 10 of C.P.C. only if matter is issued is sub judice before a competent Court the parties are same and the Court is competent to grant relief in the present suit. Admittedly the Custodian cannot either decide the matter in issue nor can grant relief as claimed in suit, hence, proceed in suit.
6. In this view of the matter the learned Civil Judge rightly declined to stay the proceedings. Mere fact that valuable property is involved would not make any difference or change the course permissible in law. If ultimately the property is found to be an evacuee then the judgment of the learned Civil Judge will be subject to the decision in the proceedings before the Custodian. This fact has also been taken note of by learned Civil Judge which sufficiently safeguards the apprehension of the petitioner. This being so, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. Resultantly this revision is dismissed. H.B.T./I‑144/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.