2003 PLP 1284 (SCMR)
PUNJAB BOARD OF REVENUE, EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1284 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Kokhar, JJ |
| Parties | PUNJAB BOARD OF REVENUE, EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1284 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1284 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Kokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1284 (SCMR) (PUNJAB BOARD OF REVENUE, EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Syed Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.3 to 13.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 2002.
- 4. No affidavit of Ch. Zafar Ullah, Advocate, who allegedly intimated the petitioner that there was no need to file civil petition has been appended with this petition. Even otherwise, the said ground is no ground for condonation of delay much less sufficient grounds as envisaged by the rules of this Court. Apart from this, the judgments A passed by the Courts below in this case are perfectly in accordance with law for rejection of the plaint was sought on the ground that the matter was barred by res judicata and it has been rightly held that the same could be decided after framing regular issue and leading of evidence.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-2-2000 passed in W.P. No.2725 of 2000).
O. VII, R.11
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Rejection of plaint declined
Failure to produce affidavit of the counsel
Petition for leave to appeal was barred by 15 days-- Application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. filed by defendant was dismissed by the Trial Court
Judgment of the Trial Court was maintained by the Appellate Court as well as High Court
Reason for the delay advanced by the petitioner was that the counsel had advised him not to file the petition as the interest of the petitioner had been safeguarded by High Court
Petitioner failed to append the affidavit of the counsel who allegedly intimated the petitioner that there was no need to file petition
Even otherwise the reason advanced by the petitioner was no ground for condonation of delay
Judgments passed by the Courts below were perfectly in accordance with law
Leave to appeal was refused.
O. VII, R. 11 & S.11
Rejection of plaint was sought on the ground that the matter was barred by res judicata as such the same could be decided after framing regular issue and leading evidence
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 25-2-2000 of the Lahore High Court through which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The respondents filed a suit against the petitioner in which the petitioner made an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. It was dismissed through order, dated 12-11-1999 by the trial Court against which revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, through order, dated 6-1-2000. The petitioner filed Constitutional petition before the High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 25-2-2000 against which leave is sought.
3. This petition is barred by 15 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner intimated the petitioner that though the writ petition had been dismissed but certain observations had been made which were sufficient to safeguard the interest of the petitioner therefore, there was no need to file civil petition for leave to appeal before this Court but when certified copy of the judgment was obtained, it was found that it was necessary to file this civil petition, therefore, delay should be condoned.
4. No affidavit of Ch. Zafar Ullah, Advocate, who allegedly intimated the petitioner that there was no need to file civil petition has been appended with this petition. Even otherwise, the said ground is no ground for condonation of delay much less sufficient grounds as envisaged by the rules of this Court. Apart from this, the judgments A passed by the Courts below in this case are perfectly in accordance with law for rejection of the plaint was sought on the ground that the matter was barred by res judicata and it has been rightly held that the same could be decided after framing regular issue and leading of evidence.
5. The petitioner will be at liberty to produce evidence after framing of issue on the point that the suit was barred by respondent judicata which shall be decided in accordance with law.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed both on merits and also as barred by time and leave refused. M.H./P-56/S Leave refused.