1985 PLP 2259 (CLC)
WARY AM and 8 others — Petitioners Versus FAIZ AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2259 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | WARY AM and 8 others — Petitioners Versus FAIZ AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2259 (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 1985 PLP 2259 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2259 (CLC) (WARY AM and 8 others — Petitioners Versus FAIZ AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.M. Bashir Butt and Khaliq Chauhan for Petitioners.
- Allah Nawaz for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115--Revision petition, tested under ingredients of S. 115, Civil Procedure Code, having no merit--Revision dismissed--Grounds under which revision lies mentioned.
Judgment & Decree
This revision petition has sought to annul the order, dated 9-11-1981 pronounced by Ch. Shaukat Nawaz Goraya, the learned Civil Judge I-Class, Bahawalnagar who had allowed the amendment of the plaint to the respondent on three occasions.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition in substance are that Faiz Ahmad, the respondent sought to pre-empt the sale of the land in dispute measuring 100 Kanals situated in village Khaim Garh Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar on payment of Rs.57,
000. He had not shown some of the petitioners as minors. Firstly, the respondent submitted an application for the amendment of the plaint praying therein that Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram were minors. The second application was intended to show that Nazir Ahmad, Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul Shakoor and Fayyaz Ahmad, petitioners No. 7, 11, 12 and 13 were also minors. The third application was also intended to amend the Plaint to state that Riaz Ahmad, petitioner No.15 as a minor. All the three applications were disposed of by means of a consolidated order which has been assailed in this revision petition.
3. In accordance with Muhammad Ismail etc. v. Muhammad Sarwar etc. 1980 S C M R 254, limitation does not begin to run from the date of the amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners has simply urged that the respondent/plaintiff was extremely negligent in stating the detail of the defendants and the discretion should not haVe been exercised against him. This is no ground for the acceptance of the revision petition because the revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. lies on the following grounds:-- (i) That the Court had the jurisdiction to decide the matter which was not exercised; and (ii) That the Court had no jurisdiction vested in it which had been exercised; and (iii) That the Court acted with illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. A. Tested under these ingredients, the revision petition has no merit. I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition with no order as to costs. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.