1984 S C M R 709

1984 S C M R 709

Present : Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ

Mst. KHAISTA JAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners

Versus

HAFIZ‑UR‑REHMAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 10‑R of 1984, decided on 21st March, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 1-11‑193 in Civil Revision No. 86 of 1982).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10­--N: W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), S. 12‑Pre‑emption suite Imp leading of necessary party‑Person purchasing suit property from plaintiff during pendency of suit‑Such person filing application before trial Court for being impleaded as plaintiff to suit‑Order of trial Court allowing such person to be impleaded as plaintiff to suit, held, just and fair and in accordance with dictates of principles of impleading necessary party‑Judgment of High Court upholding trial Court's view, held further, unexceptionable‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Abdul Hakeem Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Mushtaq Ali Tahar Kheli, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 21st March, 1984. .

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from a revisional order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 1‑11‑1983 ; whereby while setting aside an appellate order, the order passed by a learned Civil Judge substituting the respondents as plaintiffs in a suit was restored.

The brief facts strictly relevant to the present petition stated at the Bar are that Fakhr‑uz-Zaman and others plaintiffs filed a suit against Malik Amin and others. Subsequently the respondents filed an application that they having purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit from the, plaintiffs, should be impleaded as plaintiffs. This application was allowed, under Order XXII, rule 10, C. P. C: The present petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge which was allowed. The petitioner's plea was that they having filed a pre‑emption suit on the ground of being tenants had in the meanwhile succeeded in respect of the same sale which was relied upon by the respondents, no cause of action was left with the latter so as to be impleaded as plaintiffs. The respondents then filed a revision petition in the High Court. Their plea as explained by their learned counsel is that the original suit filed by Fakhr‑uz‑Zaman and others was on the basis that the petitioners as tenants could not have denied the title of the land owners, therefore, on such denial they forfeited the right to continue as tenants accordingly Fakhr‑uz‑Zaman and others were entitled to the declaration and possession sought in the original suit. After the suit is ultimately decreed it is further submitted from the respondents side, the so‑called tenants would lose the rights of tenancy which was the basis of their alleged right of pre‑emption, and that respondents would have a cause of action to protect their purchase made during the pendency of the suit.

After hearing the learned counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned trial Court is not only just and fair but is also in accord with the dictates of the principles regarding impleading necessary parties. The judgment of the High Court in this behalf is unexceptionable. We do not find any justification for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed.

M.Z. M.                                                                                               Petition dismissed.









Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358 Present: Mian Saqib Nisar, Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Tariq Parvez, JJ Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another---Appellants/Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another---Respondents Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2015, and Civil Petition No.1428-L of 2015.           (Against the order dated 11-6-2015 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.M. Nos. 385, 388/2009 and 2051 of 2015) (a) Words and phrases --- ----"Merge" and "merger"---Definitions.             Chambers English Dictionary 7th Edn.; Oxford English Dictionary (1933); Corpus Juris Secoundum (1936) and The Constitution of India by Prof. S.R.Bhansali ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C, filing of---Forum---"Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order"---Principles---For all legal purposes, it was the final decree/order of the last Court in ...
Read more

P L D 2009 Lahore 362

P L D 2009 Lahore 362 Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Shamim and M.A. Zafar, JJ GHULAM MURTAZA and another---Appellants Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No.284-J of 2008, decided on 27th March, 2009. (a) Administration of justice--- ----Principles---Quintessence of the Civilization's evolution and growth in the legal field is a progression from dispensation of justice according to the principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" to "justice according to law"---Rationale or raison d'etre for this momentum, quite easy to discern and comprehend, is that justice ought not to be administered according to whims, caprice or subjective standards of an individual judge but it should be dispensed according to some codified or stipulated standards so as to render the outcome consistent and reasonably predictable---Predictability of judicial response to an action or inaction of a person is important because, by and large, people livi...
Read more

2010 SCMR 1181, Supreme Court Allowed Superdari

2010 SCMR 1181 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ ALLAH DITTA----Petitioner Versus THE STATE----Respondent Criminal Petition No.461 of 2009, decided on 12th February, 2010. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore dated 3-6-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2009). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 74, Proviso---`Any private individual'---Meaning and scope ---Phrase "any private individual" is to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific words, "accused, or his associate or relative' ---By application of the rule the "private individual" mentioned in the proviso refers to such an `individual who has some nexus with the offender or the offence-I-Innocent owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime having no nexus whatsoever, either with the accused or the crime, would not fall within the scope of the ph...
Read more