FAYAZ vs MUHAMMAD HANEEF O — 2025 CLC 1247 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

FAYAZ VS MUHAMMAD HANEEF O. VII, R. 11, O.I, Rr. 9 & 10 & O.VI, R. 17---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 135---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Shamilat Deh---Suit for declaration alongwith permanent and mandatory injunction---Misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party---Amendments in pleadings---Scope---Application for rejection of plaint was accepted on the grounds that neither relief of possession was claimed in the suit, nor the entire propriety body of the Shamilat Deh was impleaded as party---Appellate Court set aside order of rejection of plaint and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision on merits---Validity---Co-sharer in exclusive possession of a certain portion of joint land can retain possession of the same to the extent of his shares, so long as there is no official partition between the co-sharers by metes and bounds---Suit filed by a co-owner under the provisions of S. 42 read with S. 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is maintainable, who is in possession of a piece of Shamilat land, which has not yet been partitioned and there is a denial to his title and threat to his possession by the other members of the proprietary body---Plaint cannot be rejected for want of impleadment of entire proprietary body of the village because the necessary and proper party can be impleaded by the Court, at any stage, of the proceedings in order to pass an effective decree in terms of the provisions of O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C.---No suit shall be defeated on account of mis-joinder or non-joinder of the necessary parties, rather, the courts are mandated to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the rights and interests of the parties directly involved therein, as postulated by O.1, R. 9 of C.P.C.---Plaint could not be rejected merely for want of non-seeking therein a consequential relief, despite being mandatory in such like suits, rather, the Trial Court could direct the plaintiff to amend his plaint by including consequential relief therein in order to secure ends of justice---Suit cannot be dismissed on account of any defect in its form and the court is competent to direct amendment in plaint for extending relief to which the party is otherwise entitled on merits---Courts should exercise their powers liberally while allowing the amendments in the cases where such amendments are necessary to secure the ends of justice---Civil revision was partially allowed, in the circumstances and impugned findings of Appellate Court were modified to the extent that the respondent was allowed to file an amended plaint seeking therein partition of the entire Shamilat Deh by impleading the entire proprietary body of the village and consequential relief of possession.

FAYAZ vs MUHAMMAD HANEEF O — 2025 CLC 1247 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC