2015 M L D 85

2015 M L D 85

[High Court (AJ&K)]

Before Munir Ahmed Chaudhary, J

MUHAMMAD JAVAID---Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD ASLAM QAMAR and 4 others---Respondents

Revision Petition No.20 of 2013, decided on 20th December, 2013.

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (BK)---

----Ss. 4 & 6---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Suit for right of prior purchase---Withdrawal of suit on the basis of compromise---Appeal---Withdrawal of said appeal with permission to file application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. before the Tria l Court---Scope---Plaintiff did not press for permission to file an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. before the Appellate Court and he prayed only for withdrawal of appeal---No bar with regard to filing application under S.12(2), C.P.C. with the Trial Court was imposed by the Appellate Court---Plaintiff was debarred to pray for permission to move an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Revision was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances.

            Ch. Muhammad Ilyas for Petitioner.

            Ch. Mehboob Ellahi for Respondent No.1.

ORDER

            MUNIR AHMAD CHAUDHARY, J.---This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of District Judge Kotli dated 21-5-2013, through which an application for withdrawal of an appeal was allowed.

2.         Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner and the pro forma respondents filed a suit for pre-emption against the present respondents in the court of Civil Judge Charhoi. During pendency of the suit, the present petitioner and pro forma respondents/plaintiffs filed an application regarding compromise. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs and one of the plaintiffs Saqib Javaid got recorded their statements regarding the said compromise. They stated that the plaintiffs do not want to pursue the suit. As a result, the suit was dismissed due to the said compromise.

3.         Later on, the present petitioner and pro forma respondents preferred an appeal before District Judge Kotli. During pendency of the appeal, the present petitioner submitted an application before District Judge Kotli to permit withdrawal of the appeal and filing of an application before Civil Judge Charhoi under section 12(2) of C.P.C. The learned District Judge allowed withdrawal of appeal but did not permit to file application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. before Civil Judge Charhoi. Hence, the instant revision petition.

4.         Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Ch. Muhammad Ilyas Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was enjoined upon the learned District Judge Kotli to permit filing of an application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. because the petitioner/appellant prayed for the same. The learned counsel requested to accept the revision petition.

5.         While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Mehboob Ellahi Advocate, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the learned counsel time (sic) for the petitioner did not press for permission to file the said application and requested only to permit withdrawal of the appeal. The learned District Judge Kotli ignored the prayer for filing the said application only due to statement of the learned counsel at bar. Now, the petitioner and pro forma respondents are debarred to pray for the same before this court. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the instant revision petition.

6.         After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record minutely. The record reveals that the learned counsel time (sic) for the petitioner and pro forma respondents stated before the learned District Judge Kotli while advancing arguments that he does not want to press for permission to file an application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. and he prayed only for permission for withdrawal of the appeal. The learned District Judge Kotli did not impose any ban for filing the said application before Civil Judge Charhoi.

            Having in view the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner is debarred to pray for permission to file an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. through the instant revision petition. The instant revision petition is not maintainable, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.

AG/30/H.C.(AJ&K)                                                                            Revision 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