2008 PLP 2137 (YLR)
Sheikh ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2137 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Sheikh ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2137 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 2137 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2137 (YLR) (Sheikh ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115 & O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42
Petitioner(plaintiff) in a suit for possession filed application under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2 at revision stage stating that he had filed annexures which were not available to him at the time the impugned order was passed and as such were not part of the file
Held, such documents were not part of the file before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
Proper remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Trial Court and place all such documents before it and not before the High Court in revision
No illegality or irregularity in the judgments of courts below having been pointed out by the petitioner, interference was declined by High Court in revision which was dismissed
High Court, however, observed that so far as the annexures were concerned, petitioner was at liberty to place the documents before the Trial Court and thereafter file an application if so needed.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL AHMAD, J.
The petitioner filed a suit against he respondent that he is owner in possession of the shop detail of which is given in para-1 of the plaint and that stair cases as mentioned in para-2 of the plaint was 'part of the property which was purchased by his father/ predecessor in interest and that stair cases were joint between their property and the property of the respondents, who wanted to break down the said stair case for which the respondents had no legal right or authority the property was an Evacuee/Settlement property being used by the petitioner for the last thirty five years. The petitioner also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
2. The respondent contested the suit as well as application by filing written statement and reply to the application. The learned Civil Judge on 10-12-2006 rejected the application of the petitioner and framed issues and directed the parties to submit their list of witnesses and fixed the case for evidence of the petitioner for 16-12-2006. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 23-12-2006. Hence, this petitioner.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he has filed Annexure K, H and I which were not available to him at the time the impugned order was passed and such are not part of the file. Be that as it may these documents were not part of the file before the learned civil Judge as well, as of the learned Additional District Judge. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the learned trial Court and place all these documents before it and not before this Court. 4A. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of Courts below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The same are, therefore, upheld and this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine.
5. So far the documents are concerned the petitioner is at liberty to place them before the learned trial Court and thereafter file an application if need so arises. M.B.A./A-67/L Petition dismissed.