1989 PLP 498 (SCMR)
Mst. NAZIMA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus Mst: HASINA BEGUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 498 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. NAZIMA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus Mst: HASINA BEGUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 498 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 498 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 498 (SCMR) (Mst. NAZIMA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus Mst: HASINA BEGUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Raj, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- MA. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1988.
- Mushtaq Raj, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- MA. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 20-6-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No.2125 of 1988).
0.11, R. 2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Omission to claim part of relief--Effect--Earlier suit for permanent injunction on basis of agreement of sale--Subsequent suit for specific performance of said agreement and thereafter withdrawal of earlier suit--High Court's view that provisions of 0.11, R.2 were not applicable, assailed--Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether view taken by High Court was contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court reported m 1987 S C M R
527. Aziz Ahmad and others v. Mst. Hajran Bibi and others 1987 S C M R 527 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Respondent No.l brought a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of an agreement of sale allegedly executed by respondents 2 to 6 m her favour. Later, she filed another suit for specific performance of the said agreement and then withdrew the suit for permanent injunction. A question arose before the trial Court whether the second suit was competent and not hit by the provision of Rule 2 of Order
11. Civil Procodure Code. The trial Court, held that the suit was not maintainable and rejected the plaint. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Additional :District.Judge from the order‑of the trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal :and remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings. The petitioners who had purchased the property from the respondents Nos.2 to (a filed a revision petition before the High Court but it was dismissed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the view taken by the High Court and the learned Additional District Judge is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Aziz Ahmad and others v. Mst. Hajran Bibi and others (1987 S C M R 527). This contention requires examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The proceedings in the trial Court are stayed in the meanwhile. Status quo with regard to possession to be_‑maintained during the. pendency of this appeal. AA./N‑113/S Leave to appeal granted.