1992 PLP 504 (CLC)
YOUSAF‑‑‑Appellant Versus SODAGAR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 504 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | YOUSAF‑‑‑Appellant Versus SODAGAR‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 504 (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 1992 PLP 504 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 504 (CLC) (YOUSAF‑‑‑Appellant Versus SODAGAR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab for Appellant.
- Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 96 & O.XLIII, R.1(4)‑‑‑First appeal‑‑‑Appellate Court below after framing additional issues, set aside judgment and decree of Trial Court and remanded case to be decided afresh after giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence on such additional issues‑‑‑Order of Appellate Court was challenged in first appeal before High Court‑‑‑With consent of parties order of Appellate Court below to the extent of setting aside judgment and decree of Trial Court, was set aside by High Court with directions that appeal would continue to remain pending before Appellate Court below and Trial Court after taking additional evidence in proof and disproof of additional issues would return evidence to Appellate Court together with its findings thereon and reasons therefor.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Tayyab for Appellant. Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1990. On 28‑10‑1978, Yousaf appellant filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the disputed house, against Sodagar, respondent, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha. As a consequential relief, he prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession of the disputed house. He averred in the plaint that he was in possession of the disputed house for the last 15/16 years; and he constructed the house in dispute on the vacant plot by spending 5,000/6,000 rupees and the defendants was bent upon taking possession of the house forcibly. The suit was resisted. The trial Court framed 7 issues. The parties led the evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 16‑5‑1983. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Sodagar defendant filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Sargodha on 24‑4‑1984, who while framing following issues:‑ (6‑A) Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit property? If so, what is its effect? OPD. (6‑B) Whether the defendant had rented out the property in dispute to the plaintiff? If so, its effect. OPP. set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and sent back the case to Civil Judge 2nd Class for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the issues framed by him. Hence this appeal. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the order of the District Judge dated 24‑4‑1984 to the extent of setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, is set aside. The appeal shall continue to remain pending before him; the issues 6‑A and 6‑B framed by the appellate Court are referred for trial to the trial Court, with the direction that it shall take additional evidence in proof and disproof of the issues which may be adduced by the parties and shall return the evidence to the learned District Judge, Sargodha, together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor. The trial Court will complete its proceedings within two months of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./Y‑1/L Order accordingly.