1999 PLP 2207 (YLR)
JAVAID IQBAL and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Communication and Works (Highway Department) and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2207 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | JAVAID IQBAL and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Communication and Works (Highway Department) and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2207 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2207 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2207 (YLR) (JAVAID IQBAL and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Communication and Works (Highway Department) and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A.‑G for Respondents Nos. l and 2.
- Ahmad Waheed Khan for Respondents Nos.3 to 6.
- The relevant facts for the decision of this appeal are that the appellants instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief. The suit was originally filed against respondents Nos.3 to 6 who contested the same. The appellants moved an application for impleading respondents Nos. l and 2 as party to the suit while original defendants moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The trial Court vide order, dated 28‑11‑1996 allowed the application for impleading respondents Nos.l and 2 but dismissed the application' for rejection of the plaint. This order was assailed through a revision petition, which came up for hearing on the file of Ch. Ijaz Mehmood, the then Additional District Judge, Ferozewala. The revision was accepted vide order, dated 1‑4‑1997. The appellants have now filed the present appeal which was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate -General is present on Court's call on behalf of respondents Nos. l and 2 while Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate appeared on behalf of rest of the respondents.
- 3. Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 6 argued that the appellants themselves have stated that the whole land acquired by respondents Nos. l and 2 in para. No.3 of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. However, in his usual frank and candid manner it was submitted that in view of the declarations sought the matter has to be decided by the Civil Court.
- 4. Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate‑General adopted the arguments of Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
The relevant facts for the decision of this appeal are that the appellants instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief. The suit was originally filed against respondents Nos.3 to 6 who contested the same. The appellants moved an application for impleading respondents Nos. l and 2 as party to the suit while original defendants moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The trial Court vide order, dated 28‑11‑1996 allowed the application for impleading respondents Nos.l and 2 but dismissed the application' for rejection of the plaint. This order was assailed through a revision petition, which came up for hearing on the file of Ch. Ijaz Mehmood, the then Additional District Judge, Ferozewala. The revision was accepted vide order, dated 1‑4‑1997. The appellants have now filed the present appeal which was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate -General is present on Court's call on behalf of respondents Nos. l and 2 while Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate appeared on behalf of rest of the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Additional District Judge failed to comprehend the controversy. It is explained that the whole of the land was not acquired and there were number of declarations sought by the appellants, therefore, the plaint could not be rejected.
3. Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 6 argued that the appellants themselves have stated that the whole land acquired by respondents Nos. l and 2 in para. No.3 of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. However, in his usual frank and candid manner it was submitted that in view of the declarations sought the matter has to be decided by the Civil Court.
4. Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate‑General adopted the arguments of Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. It is not clear from para. No.3 of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. as to whether the whole of the suit land has been acquired by respondents Nos.1 and
2. Moreover, the declarations sought could only be adjudicated by the Civil Court. This could not be decided without framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Additional District Judge acted with material irregularity while accepting the revision.
6. The upshot of this discussion is that the impugned order, dated 1‑4‑1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, a Ferozewala is set aside by accepting this appeal with no order as to costs. The result is that the suit would be deemed pending on the file of Ch. Muhammad Saleem, Civil Judge, 1st Class, Ferozewala who is directed to decide the case expeditiously in any case within four months even if he has to proceed day to day. C.M.A./M.A.K./I‑69/L Appeal accepted.