MUHAMMAD QAYYUM through L.Rs. and 6 others — Petitioners Versus HAQ NAWAZ DOGAR through Dr. Ali Naqi and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore
Mst. NASREEN MAHMOODA — Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ IMRAN and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore
SCMR
1997
Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1993, decided on 9th October, 1996.
TAJ DIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. MEHR MAI and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
CLC
1988
Revision Applications Nos. 298 and 345 of 1980, decided on 18th February, 1987.
YAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. AMNAT and others‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi
PLD
1968
Regular Second Appeal No. 596 of 1959, decided on 28th February 1968.
ABAD ALI‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER‑‑ Respondents
Court:
CLC
1980
Civil Revision No. 801/BWP of 1975, decided on 19th November, 1975.
ALI MUMAMMAD AND Others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS — Respondents
Court: Baghdad-ul-Jadid
AIMAN FATIMA and another — Appellants Versus FOZIA HASAN and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh
CLC
2003
Civil Revision No.295 of 2002, decided on 24th March, 2003.
BAGHI GUL and others — Petitioners Versus ALI WAZ KHAN and others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar
SCMR
2007
Civil Appeal No.575 of 2005, decided on 25th April, 2007.
BASHIR AHMED KHAN — Appellant Versus SHAMAS-UD-DIN and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
YLR
2004
----Ss. 12 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.12 (2) & O. XXXII, R.4(3)-- Suit for specific performance of agreement and declaration---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court, but was decreed by the Appellate Court on basis of `Adhlapi' agreement---Two sons of the defendant, after about twenty-one years filed application under S.12(2), C. P. C. challenging validity of decree of Appellate Court on the plea of fraud and misrepresentation---Said two sons had alleged that at the relevant time they were minors and defendant who was their father had defended suit on their behalf as their alleged guardian ad litem, but . his appointment as guardian ad litem was void as he was appointed without consent and thus had not taken any interest in defending the suit and appeal and furthermore mandatory provisions of O.XXXII, R.4(3), C. P. C. had not been complied with by the Trial Court---Joint written statement was submitted in suit by all the defendants including minors through an advocate---No allegation was made by said two sons in their application under S.12(2), C.P.C. that said Advocate was not appointed as counsel by defendant or that said Advocate was not authorized as to make statement on behalf of defendant---Defendant was father of minors/defendants and no other person was more suitable to safeguard the right of minors---Record showed that interest of defendant/guardian ad litem was not adverse to his minor sons neither any such allegation was made by said two sons in their application under S.12(2), C.P.C.-- Evidence on record had shown that not only suit, but appeal was contested and that minors were fully represented by their guardian ad litem through same advocate who was representing their guardian ad litem---Joint written statement was thumb marked by guardian ad litem and other major defendants---If thumb-impressions of minors were also obtained on said written statement, it was merely a redundant exercise wherefrom it could not be inferred that they were not represented by their guardian ad litem---Nothing was produced to show that defendant was not aware that he was appointed as guardian ad litem and that he had not taken interest in defending the suit and appeal---Both, suits as well as appeal, were contested and were decided on merits---Contention that mandatory provisions of O.XXXI, R.4(3), C.P.C. was not complied with by Trial Court, was without force and was repelled because counsel for defendant had given consent on behalf of his client and appointment of said counsel had never been objected to---Impugned order being based on plausible reasoning and not suffering from any jurisdictional infirmity, could not be interfered with in revision.
NAZAR HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore
