1985 PLP 1887 (CLC)
ABDUR RASHID and 6 others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1887 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | C.A. Rahman, J |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHID and 6 others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1887 (CLC)?
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 1887 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: C.A. Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1887 (CLC) (ABDUR RASHID and 6 others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10 & 151--Suits, consolidation of--After dismissal of appellants' suit, respondents instituting a suit for claiming ownership of same property and appellant filing appeal against dismissal of suit--Matter in suit under appeal and respondents' suit being same--Held, it would be expedient and in interest of justice that appellants' suit may be decided afresh alongwith the suit instituted by respondents--Appeal allowed and case remanded for trial of both suits together after consolidation of proceedings. Allah Wasaya Malik for the Appellants.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that after the dismissal of the appellant's suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, the respondents themselves instituted a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the property in dispute and delivery of possession of the said property by way of consequential relief, against the appellants in the civil Court. The proceedings in the said suit were, however, stayed by the learned trial Court on 4-2-1979 on an application submitted by the appellants under section 10, C.P.C. Since the matter for determina tion in the aforementioned suit and the appellants' suit, which has been dismissed, is the same, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice that the appellants' suit may be decided afresh alongwith the suit instituted by the respondents. The question of jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the appellants' suit may be left open to be determined by the trial Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has admitted that the respondents had filed a Suit after the dismissal of the appellants suit and that the proceedings in the said suit were stayed by the trial Court as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants. He has agreed that the appellants' suit, which was dismissed on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction, may be tried and decided afresh alongwith the respondents' suit as it would save the parties from unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings in respect of the same property. He has also agreed that the question of jurisdiction of civil Court to try the appellants' suit may be left open as suggested by learned counsel for the appellants.
3. In view of the position stated by the learned counsel for the parties this appeal is allowed, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. The case shall be sent to the same Court where the respondents' suit for declaration i.e. Muhammad Hanif v. Ahmad Din etc. Civil Suit No. 139 of 1976, is pending. The learned trial Court would try both the suits together after consolidating the proceedings.
3. The question whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suits shall be decided by the learned trial Court alongwith other issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and its decision shall not be affected by the earlier findings on issues Nos. 2 and 3 in the appellants' suit, as affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 22-11-1976. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M.A.K. Case remamnded.