Citation Name: 2024 PLD 101 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case KHRUM SHEZAD ZAFAR vs RAZIA BEGUM

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 PLD 101 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case KHRUM SHEZAD ZAFAR VS RAZIA BEGUM O. VII, R.11---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 39 & 12---Suit for cancellation of gift-mutation and restoration of possession of suit-property---Rejection of plaint---averments of the plaint---Cause of action---Relief(s) sought for---Evidence, requirement of---Scope---Plaintiff/lady, apart from cancellation of mutation, sought second relief praying restoration of her possession over two rooms constructed by her claiming that she was forcibly dispossessed without adopting proper course of law---Civil Court rejected the plaint of the lady/ plaintiff allowing an application filed by the defendants, however, the appellate Court partly allowed plaintiff's appeal remanding the case with a direction to decide the second relief/prayer on merit---Contention of the petitioners/defendants was that gift-mutation was admitted---Plea of the respondent /plaintiff was that evidence was required in respect of second limb /relief sought by her---Validity---While deciding an application under O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, only averments of the plaint were to be taken into consideration and every case was to be decided as per its own peculiar fact and circumstances---Respondent/plaintiff beside seeking cancellation of the impugned gift also sought relief for restoration of her possession of two rooms, which were allegedly constructed by her and said fact was also admitted in another suit filed by the petitioners which was already decreed---Since the respondent/plaintiff was allegedly forcibly dispossessed from the suit-property without adopting proper course of law, and in respect of second limb of her prayer the suit did not fall in the penal provision of O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Trial Court considered only one prayer/relief while deciding application filed by the petitioners/ defendants under O. VII, R. 11, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Suit could be considered and decided independently on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties with regard to the other prayer---Such partial rejection, as in the present case, was not permissible under the law---appellate Court for justifiable reason had set-aside the order of the Trial Court, therefore, impugned order passed by the appellate Court did not call for any interference by the High Court---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 101 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case KHRUM SHEZAD ZAFAR vs RAZIA BEGUM O — 2024 PLD 101 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD