2005 PLP 666 (CLC)
HAZRAT ALI — Plaintiff Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Planning and Development and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 666 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAZRAT ALI — Plaintiff Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Planning and Development and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 666 (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 2005 PLP 666 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 666 (CLC) (HAZRAT ALI — Plaintiff Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Planning and Development and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 153 & O.VII, R.11
Correction of name of defendant
Name of one of the defendants earlier cited in title of plaint was corrected without effecting change in name of his parentage
Correction in the name of defendant did not have any bearing on merits of suit
Bona fide mistake or misdescription could be rectified at any stage as no period of limitation was provided for such exercise in terms of S.153, C.P.C.
Since no one was in attendance from defendants side when case was called out application filed by defendants under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Listed application (C.M.A. No.1072 of 2003) under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. has been filed by the counsel for defendant No.2. It is pointed out by Mr. Nasir Maqsood, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that earlier name of defendant No.3 cited as Pir Muhammad in the title of plaint was corrected as Sher Muhammad without effecting the name change of parentage vide order dated 20-4-1998. According to the learned counsel, the correction in the name of defendant No.3 does not have any bearing on merit of suit. In view of the dicta laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in a reported case titled as Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 2001 SC 209 at relevant page 212 wherein it has been held that bona fide mistake or misdescription can be rectified at any stage, no period of limitation is provided for in terms of section 153, C.P.C. It is even otherwise stated that application was allowed subject to all just exceptions. If at all, any objection of any nature could be raised, it could be raised by the defendant No.3 and not by any other defendants. Since the matter has been called out but none is in attendance on behalf of the defendants Nos.1 and
2. The application is dismissed. C.M.A. No.1072 stands disposed of in above terms. H.B.T./H-40/K Order accordingly.