2004 PLP 744 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD TANVIR KHALID — Petitioner Versus P.T.C.L. through Chairman, P.T.C.L. and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 744 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TANVIR KHALID — Petitioner Versus P.T.C.L. through Chairman, P.T.C.L. and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 744 (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 2004 PLP 744 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 744 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD TANVIR KHALID — Petitioner Versus P.T.C.L. through Chairman, P.T.C.L. and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O. IX, R.8
Second suit, maintainability of
Suit earlier filed by plaintiffs having been dismissed for non prosecution, second suit filed by plaintiff qua the same subject matter and relief was not maintainable in view of mandatory provisions of O. IX, R. 8, C. P. C.
Both Courts below having decided case in terms of mandatory provisions of law, in absence of any infirmity and illegality, concurrent judgments, of Courts below, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Iftikhar Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Ist Class, Arifwala. Respondents filed written statement and took preliminary objection and the petitioner had filed a suit against the respondents earlier which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Respondents filed an application before the learned trial Court under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., which was accepted by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 14-6-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Arifwala, who dismissed the same vide judgment, dated 17-3-2003. Hence, the revision petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that earlier suit of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and was not dismissed on merits, therefore, the second suit filed by the petitioner was competent. He further submits that learned trial Court erred in law to accept the application of the petitioner under Order. VII, rule 11, C.P.C. He further submits that respondents have taken preliminary objection in the written statement, therefore; it is the duty and obligation of the learned trial Court to frame issue on the basis of preliminary objection and after recording the evidence of the parties then case will be decided on merits. He further submits that both the Courts below erred in law to non-suit the petitioner on technical ground.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It is an admitted fact that petitioner filed earlier suit qua the same subject matter and relief before the learned trial Court which was dismissed for non -prosecution. Second suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of mandatory provisions of Order IX, rule
8. C.P.C. Both the Courts below have decided the case in terms of mandatory provisions of law therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments of both the Courts below, same are in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgment:-- Muhammad Akbar v. Azad J&K (PLD 1966 Azad J&K. 10) In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-2153/L Revision dismissed.