1989 PLP 1069 (CLC)
Before Nasir Aazam Zahid, J Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad‑‑Respondent/Plaintiff
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1069 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aazam Zahid, J |
| Parties | Before Nasir Aazam Zahid, J Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad‑‑Respondent/Plaintiff |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1069 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1069 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nasir Aazam Zahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1069 (CLC) (Before Nasir Aazam Zahid, J Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad‑‑Respondent/Plaintiff). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑
0. XLVII, R.1‑‑Review‑‑Contentions that no details had been given in the plaint, pleadings of the plaintiff were not complete and defendants had beer burdened with the task of getting information which should have been given in plaint‑‑Held, what ever relevant information was available with the plaintiff was provided which was sufficient to file written. statement‑‑Review application was dismissed. Kazi Mahfooz Ahmad for Plaintiff., A.H. Lakho for Defendants.
Judgment & Decree
Kazi Mahfooz Ahmad for Plaintiff., A.H. Lakho for Defendants. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1994 of 1988 has been filed by the defendants for review of the order dated 6‑3‑1988. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants Mr. A . H. Lakho as follows:‑ (1) No details have been given in the plaint as required by law. (2) Pleadings of the plaintiff have to be completed before the defendants can be asked to file their written statement. (3) The application filed by the defendants in (C . M . A .5216 of 1987) has been dismissed without any reasons. (4) The defendants have been burdened with the task of getting information from the offices of the plaintiff which information should have been given in the plaint. In this matter some further and better particulars were supplied and the Additional Registrar has passed the order that such better and further particulars are sufficient. On a question from the Court. Mr. Kazi Mahfooz, learned counsel for the plaintiff, states that whatever relevant and specific information was available with the plaintiff has been given in the plaint and in the further and better particulars already supplied by the plaintiff. This statement by learned counsel for the plaintiff is taken on record. In the circumstances I do not find any necessity for reviewing the order dated 6‑3‑1988. Whatever information that has been given in the plaint and in further and better particulars, according to the A plaintiff, is the information available with the plaintiff. On that basis a written statement can be filed by the defendants. C . M. A .1994 of] 1988 is accordingly dismissed. M . Z . S . / N‑146/ K Review application dismissed.