2007 PLP 1664 (MLD)
ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, FARID KOT HOUSE, LAHORE and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1664 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, FARID KOT HOUSE, LAHORE and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1664 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1664 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1664 (MLD) (ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, FARID KOT HOUSE, LAHORE and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Sajjad Tabassum for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 96
In absence of necessary party, appeal suffered from inherent defect and was incompetent, which could not be accepted
Appeal itself being incompetent before the first appellate court, judgment rendered by it on such appeal, would lose all its significance and legal efficacy.
Judgment & Decree
SAYED ZAHID HU5SAIN, J.
A suit for declaration and injunction was instituted by the petitioner assailing the basis of annual rental value wherein the Director Excise and Taxation, Lahore. Assessing Authority, Rating Area and L.D.A./W.A.S.A. Lahore were impleaded as defendants. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 since did not enter appearance before the Trial Court, they were proceeded ex parte whereas defendant No.3 took part in the proceedings by filing written statement. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment, dated 15-9-2001. The said judgment was not assailed by defendants Nos. 1 and
2. Only Lahore Development Authority, WASA Wing (Defendant No.3 in the suit) preferred an appeal thereagainst which culminated into judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 3-6-2002 who remanded the matter to the Trial Court for decision of the suit afresh in accordance with law. The plaintiff-petitioner has, thus, assailed the judgment of the learned Appellate Court.
2. The learned counsel contends that not only that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not assail the judgment .passed by the Trial Court, the said defendants were not even impleaded as party by the Lahore Development Authority as respondents in the appeal before the lower appellate forum. According to him, the appeal so preferred was defective which could not be entertained nor- any judgment could be passed by the Appellate Court on such an incompetent appeal. Makes reference to Rule 3 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. None of the respondents despite service have entered appearance. They are proceeded ex parte.
3. The contention of the learned counsel that in the absence of necessary party, the appeal suffered from inherent defect and was incompetent which could not, thus, be accepted, has substance in view of precedents on the subject i.e. Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v. Gullan and others (PLD 1982 SC 46), Ghulam Muhammad and others v. Mehtab Beg and others (1983 SCMR 849), Abdul Qadir and 5 others v. Muhammad Umar and others (PLD 1987 Lahore 232), Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Rashid and 13 others (PLD 1987 Lahore 387), Muhammad Ibrahim and another v. Jalal Din (2002 CLC 165) and Sher Muhammad and 27 others v. Muhammad Mumtaz-ul-Islam through Legal Heirs and 6 others (2001 MLD 1964). Since the appeal itself was incompetent before the first appellate Court, the judgment rendered by it on such an appeal loses all its significance and legal efficacy. In view of the above, the revision is accepted. No order as to costs. H.B.T./A-103/L Revision accepted.