Search Case Law Database
Found 20,360 judgments matching your criteria
2025 C L C 1394
WAQAR ALI RAHUJO and another — Appellants Versus DILEEP KUMAR and others — Respondents
Decided Date: merits thereon---The appellants/plaintiffs (vendees) filed a suit seeking specific performance of a contract, cancellation of a sale deed, and permanent injunction claiming that their late father (original vendee) had entered into an agreement to purchase the land in 2010, followed by a fresh agreement with legal heirs---Despite part payment through cheques, the vendors (Respondents Nos. 1-7) allegedly sold the land to a third person (respondent No. 8) through a registered sale deed---The trial and appellate courts rejected the plaint on the grounds of res judicata and limitation, leading to the filing of the present petition---The main points for consideration in the present appeal were that (i) "Whether the suit was barred by res judicata; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908"---Held: It stood admitted that the original vendee (father of appellants/plaintiffs) had previously instituted suit against the vendor seeking enforcement of the prior sale agreement---That suit was dismissed on merits, with specific findings that the agreement could not be proved and that vendee's possession was unlawful---Notwithstanding the reliance on the fresh agreement executed with legal heirs of the original vendor, the appellants (vendees) simultaneously grounded their claim on possession allegedly derived from the earlier transaction between their predecessor-in-interests---Application under O. VII R. 11(d) C.P.C. were to be decided as per the following principles: (i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to; (ii) The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application;(iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it was necessary that (a) the 'previous suit' was decided, (b) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (c) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (d) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and (e) since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata required consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the 'previous suit', such a plea would be beyond the scope of O. VII R. 11(d), where only the statements in the plaint would have to be perused---Therefore, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under R. 11 of O. VII of C.P.C.---The reason was that the adjudication on the issue involved consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment of the appellate court---The suit should be decided on merits and the issue of res judicata should remain open and a separate issue on res judicata should be framed along with the other issues---Both the courts below erred in law and wrongly rejected the plaint on the point of res judicata as both went beyond the scope of O. VII, R. 11(d) C.P.C.---However, High Court left the point of res judicata open for the Trial Court to frame the issue upon and decide the same on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties---As far as the point of limitation for filing the suit was concerned, the examination of the agreement revealed that no fixed date was prescribed for the performance of the agreement, however, the determination of whether time was of the essence to the contract was a matter that could only be adjudicated once respondents Nos.1 to 7 (vendors) filed their respective written statements, as they were privy to the agreement---The findings of both courts below, which summarily concluded that the suit was barred by limitation and consequently rejected the plaint, appeared to be fanciful and disconnected from the record---The issue of limitation prima facie appeared to be mixed question of law and fact, which required evidentiary adjudication and necessitated a combination of scrutiny of questions of law and fact, which could not be decided hypothetically, cursorily, or without appreciating the starting point of limitation in case before non-suiting any person on the ground of limitation---Courts below erred in law by holding that suit was time barred---Impugned judgments of both the courts below were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to restore the suit to its original status by affording respondents Nos. 1 to 7 (vendors) an opportunity to file their written statements within stipulated period as provided under the law, however, High Court left open the points of res judicata and limitation for the Trial Court to decide the same after framing of the issues from the pleadings of the parties---Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances
Summary: — Ss. 12 & 39 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 — Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & First Sched. Art. 113 — Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Limitation — Res judicata, applicability of — Rejection of plaint — Conce...
2025 C L C 1369
SAEED AHMED — Applicant Versus SHABBIR AHMED and 4 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2025-March-25
Summary: — Arts. 17, 79, 81, 82, 91 & 92 — Registered gift deed, challenge to — Proof — Essential ingredients of a valid gift — Requirement of producing two attesting witnesses in evidence — Principle — Exceptions — Scope — Where execution is admitted by exec...
2025 C L C 1260
Messrs NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION — Appellant Versus Messrs ZAHRA COMMUNICATIONS — Respondent
Decided Date: 2024-December-16
Summary: — Ss. 17 & 30 — Arbitral award — Interference by High Court in appellate jurisdiction — Scope — Different claim of damages — Determining criteria — Arbitration proceedings — Announcement of award — Single Judge made the award rule of the court — Obje...
2025 C L C 1237
PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY through authorized agent — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary and 4 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-December-19
Summary: — O. XXIII, R. 3 & O. XII, R. 6 — Consent decree — Scope — Compromise between the private parties excluding the petitioner/Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority — Passing of consent decree — Claim of the petitioner-Housing Authority was that it...
2025 C L C 1224
ICI PAKISTAN LTD. Through authorized representative — Plaintiff Versus AL ABID SILK MILLS LTD. through Chief Executive Officer — Defendant
Decided Date: 2025-February-17
Summary: — Arts. 74 & 76 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 & O.XIII, R. 2 — Suit for recovery of money — Secondary evidence — Loss of original documents — Due diligence — Proof — Plaintiff/applicant sought permission to produce secondary evidence wit...
2025 C L C 1206
KHAN BAHADUR LUND — Applicant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, NADRA, Islamabad and 3 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2025-March-11
Summary: — S.42 — Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & First Sched. Art. 120 — Correction of father's name in Computerized National Identity Card [CNIC] sought — Delay in seeking such correction, effect of — The petitioner filed a suit against National Databas...
2025 C L C 1175
Messrs OILBOY (PVT.) LTD. — Appellant Versus Messrs PAK QATAR INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD. through authorized person — Respondent
Decided Date: 2025-March-20
Summary: — O.XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 — Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 28 — Summary suit for recovery on the basis of dishonored cheques filed by the respondent against the CEO of the appellant company — Application for leave to defend by the CEO was d...
2025 C L C 1131
CEDAR (PVT.) LIMITED — Appellant Versus SONERI BANK LIMITED through Manager and 2 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-January-23
Summary: — Ss. 42 & 54 — Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 12 — Intra Court Appeal — Suit for declaration and injunction — Rented premises — Non-deposit of rent by tenant due to change to property — Necessary repairs of premises — Procedure —...
2025 C L C 1116
Messrs CEDAR PRIVATE LIMITED through Authorized Representative — Petitioner Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-II/RENT CONTROLLER KARACHI SOUTH and 2 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-September-9
Summary: — Ss.15, 16(1) & 16(2) — Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199 — Eviction of tenant — Willful default in payment of rent and infringement of tenancy agreement — Pendency of civil suits regarding the premises — Filing of application by the landlord for de...
2025 C L C 1096
GHULAM RASOOL and another — Appellants Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER through Provincial Election Commissioner Sindh and 18 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2023-August-22
Summary: — Ss. 101(2), 155 & 229 — Sindh Local Government Act (XLII of 2013), S. 54 — Local Bodies elections — Recounting of votes — Election Commission, jurisdiction of — Appellants won election of union council concerned by a margin of two votes — On recoun...
2025 C L C 1083
ABDUL SAMI KEHAR — Applicant Versus AMANULLAH DASTI and 8 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-November-27
Summary: — S. 12 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIX, R.1 — Suit for specific performance — Oral agreement to sell — Proof — Failure of the applicant to give essential details in the plaint — Absence of receipts/written evidence as to payment of earnes...
2025 C L C 1054
Messrs MEHMOOD BROTHERS through Co-tenant Attorney — Petitioner Versus YOUSUF ALI and 3 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2025-February-20
Summary: — S. 15 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 — Limited scope of constitutional jurisdiction in rent matters — Ejectment application based on bona fide personal need of landlord / landlady — Eviction ordered by Rent Controller — Scope — Requirement fo...
2025 C L C 1018
FAZUL HUSSAIN (deceased) through L.Rs and 6 others — Applicants Versus MUKHTIAR AHMED through attorney and others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-May-31
Summary: — Ss. 42 & 54 — Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 100 — Suit for declaration and injunction — Thirty years old document — Presumption — Respondent / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of sale deeds registered more than thir...
2025 C L C 997
AMIR MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus IZHARUDDIN and others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2023-November-6
Summary: — S. 12 — Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12 — Suit for specific performance — Legal heirs of an applicant, who had filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. contesting the case — Entitlement — Applicant, who had filed an application under S. 1...
2025 C L C 975
GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus Mst. JANNAT KHATOON — Respondent
Decided Date: 2025-March-24
Summary: — S. 5, Sched — Family Courts Rules, 1965, R.5 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199 — Constitutional petition — Suit for recovery of maintenance, medical and delivery-related expenses — Scope — Husband's (petitioner) application for return of plaint o...
2025 C L C 966
KARIM DAD KHAN through L.R — Petitioner Versus MANSAB DAD KHAN and others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-May-27
Summary: — Significance — Conduct of party — Intention of prolonging litigation — Costs, imposition of — Statute of limitations is not a trivial technicality; it stands as a cornerstone legal principle designed to ensure fairness and finality in legal proceed...
2025 C L C 953
YASIR MUMTAZ ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. HUMA RAFIQ and 2 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-September-23
Summary: — S. 25 — Custody of minor — Determining factors — Welfare of minor daughter as the paramount consideration — Second marriage of husband — Effect — Hizanat, right of — Plea of second marriage of wife/respondent — Held, that if the contention with reg...
2025 C L C 896
MIR MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT KARACHI and others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-October-21
Summary: — Ss.28A & 34 — Acquisition of land — Compensation — Unpaid claim, verification of — Fraud — Fictious documents — Petitioners claimed recovery of alleged unpaid amount of compensation with interest, dating back to 15-9-1975 up to the present date, u...
2025 C L C 876
NANIK RAM JETHWANI — Petitioner Versus LAKHMICHAND WADWANI through legal heirs/representatives and 2 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2024-November-20
Summary: — S. 15(2) — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 — Constitutional petition — Ejectment of tenant — Default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need of land lord — Denial of relation of landlord and tenant on the ground of business partnership — ...
2025 C L C 858
Mrs. NIGHAT NAEEM and others — Petitioners Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2022-April-8
Summary: — S. 47 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 — Execution of decree — Executing Court — Powers — Plaintiffs filed a suit challenging the action of the defendant (Karachi Development Authority/KDA) cancelling the plots allotted to them (plaintiffs), wh...