2006 PLP 1471 (CLC)
AZIZ-UL-HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus SALEEM HASNAIN NAQVI — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1471 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AZIZ-UL-HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus SALEEM HASNAIN NAQVI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1471 (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 2006 PLP 1471 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1471 (CLC) (AZIZ-UL-HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus SALEEM HASNAIN NAQVI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed Ahmad for Petitioners.
- Sahibzada Mehboob Ali Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VI, R. 17
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
Plaintiff sought amendment to state in the plaint that suit-land was mortgaged with a bank and defendant had transferred same to a third person
Trial Court dismissed the application
Application for amendment was frivolous
Existence or otherwise of mortgage had no relevance with the controversy reflected in the issues framed by Trial Court
Even if it be assumed that the land was mortgaged with a bank, the transfer in favour of third person would be subject to the same and it could not be stated to be void and illegal on such ground
High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
On 3-1-1996 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent and one Zain-ud-Din (not impleaded) for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19-6-1994. It was stated in the plaint that the land has been transferred by the said Zain-ud-Din to the present respondent vide Mutation No.606 attested on 15-3-1995. This suit was contested by both the said defendants by filing written statement. Issues were framed on 25-9-1996. Evidence of both the parties was recorded. At this stage, an application was filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. It was sought to be stated in the plaint that the land was mortgaged with United Bank Limited for Rs.55,
000. The application was resisted. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on 30-9-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the proposed amendment ought to have been allowed as according to the learned counsel 'the land having been mortgaged, the said Zain-ud-Din could not have transferred it to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that apart from the fact that the factum of mortgage would not arrest the power of alienation vesting in Zain-ud-Din, of course, subject to the said encumbrance, the said encumbrance, itself stands removed as the suit filed by the Bank against Zain-ud-Din was dismissed and R.F.A. No.44 of 1994 was dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution on 25-3-2003.
3. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the parties. It is but evident that the application for amendment was frivolous. The existence or otherwise of the mortgage has no relevance whatsoever with the controversy reflected in the issues framed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent is right in urging that even if it be assumed that the land was mortgaged with the Bank, the transfer in favour of his client would be subject to the same and it cannot A be stated to be void and illegal on the said grounds. The civil revision is found to be without any force and is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs. M.H./A-103/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.