Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1386 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUNIR AHMED vs ALI RAZA O

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1386 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUNIR AHMED VS ALI RAZA O. VII, R. 11(a) & O. XIV, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877), Ss. 42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Petitioner / plaintiff filed revision as his suit was rejected under O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which judgment was maintained by the District Court---Validity---It was the case of the petitioner that he was recorded owner and in possession of the land in dispute; National Highway Authorities (NHA) had constructed the road while a watercourse towards the northern side of the NHA existed---Revenue extracts appended with the plaint showed ownership of the petitioner in column 11 of relevant Khasra---Official respondents did not dispute ownership of the petitioner in the record of rights---Regarding " cause of action", contents of the plaint manifested that the petitioner had disclosed a cause of action clause, which was apparent in relevant para of the plaint, as such, the provisions of O.VII, R.11(a), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would not be attracted in the present case---Moreover, the documents appended with the plaint reflected that the petitioner was the recorded owner of the land in dispute and the burden was upon the petitioner to substantiate his legal character and right enshrined under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, by adducing evidence at the Trial Court which was not a purely legal question, thus, the Courts below had erred in law while not dilating upon said aspect---Furthermore, O.XIV, R.1, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, demonstrates that it is a prime obligation of the Trial Court to frame issues of law and facts after receiving the pleadings of the parties, and thereafter decide the legal issue at first instance under sub-rule (2) of O. XIV, C.P.C., but in the present case Trial Court had not followed the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, thus it committed an illegality and irregularity---Impugned order/judgment and decrees of the Courts below depicted that they had misinterpreted the provision of O. VII, R.11(a), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which is a procedural provision---Trial Court had not followed the procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, while delivering the impugned order and decree in a cursory and mechanical manner, thus the same were not sustainable in eyes of law---High Court set-aside the impugned orders and decrees and directed that the application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., would be deemed pending before the Trial Court, which would frame issues of law and facts in view of the pleadings of the parties, and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law---Revision filed by the plaintiff was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1386 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUNIR AHMED vs ALI RAZA O — 2024 CLC 1386 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC