Find a Lawyer

BISHOP EJAZ INAYAT versus RT. REV. ALEXANDER JOHN MALIK

ection Section 42 Declaration The provisions of section 42 of the Reliance Relief Relief Act, 1877, for the declaration only attract an issue in which the plaintiff approaches the court for protection of its legal role or property rights. - Where your legal role is right or property is not included, the suit is not manageable [pp, 536, 537] A&E

P L D 2017 Sindh 528 

Before Syed Saeeduddin Nasir, J

Bishop EJAZ INAYAT—Plaintiff

versus

Rt. Rev. ALEXANDER JOHN MALIK and 7 others—Defendants

Suit No.970 of 2003, decided on 30th December, 2016.

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)—

—S. 42—Suit for declaration—Scope—Provisions of S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, are attracted only to a case in which plaintiff approaches Court for safeguard of his right to legal character or property— Where right to his own legal character or property is not involved, suit is not maintainable. [pp, 536, 537] A & E

Miss. Roohi Shaikh v. Board of Secondary Education, Karachi and 2 others 1996 MLD 1190; Abdur Rahman Mobashir and 3 others v. Syed Amir Ali Shah Bokhari and 4 others PLD 1978 Lah. 113; Shafqatullah Qadri v. University of Karachi through Vice Chancellor PLD 1954 Sindh 107; Burmah Eastern Limited v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others PLD 1967 Dacca 190; Al-Haj Abdur Rehman Bhuya and others v. The Commissioners of Narayanganj Municipality and others PLD 1959 Dacca 5; Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, N.-W.F.P, and Bahawalpur v. Mrs. E.V. Miller and others DLR 1959 Dacca 430; Ilam Din v. Hassan Din PLD 2006 Lah. 121; M.A. Naseer v. Chairman Pakistan Eastern Railway PLD 1965 SC 83 and Sheoparsan v. Ramandand AIR 1960 PC 78 rel. - '

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)—

—Ss. 42 & 54— Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. V11, R. 11—Suit for declaration and injunction—Plaint, rejection of—Religious rights— Plaintiff assailed elections of church—Validity—Functioning and elections of Synod of Church of Pakistan, which was a religious body of Roman Catholic Christians, and for election of which a specific

procedure was prescribed in Constitution of Church of Pakistan, could not be called in question before Civil Court—No Court was empowered to deal with question purely ecclesiastical, whether arising in Christian or any other religious community—With such matters, Civil Court had nothing to do, until and unless they resulted in an infraction of civil rights—Plaintiff filed the suit to avenge his defeat in elections to the office of Bishop of Karachi—Plaintiff did not want to part with possession of house which was temporarily given to him when he was temporarily appointed as Commissary of the Diocese of Karachi until the Consecration Ceremony and being Commissary plaintiff entered into premises of the Bishop House, Holy Trinity Cathedral, temporarily and started living there, where his illegal occupation was continuing even after losing his election, which normally, plaintiff should have vacated for elected Consecrated Bishop—No cause of action accrued to plaintiff for filing suit—Plaintiff did not disclose any cause of action for filing suit against defendants, no ultimate relief could be granted to plaintiff in the suit as the same was not maintainable—Plaint was rejected in circumstances. [pp. 539, 542] C & E

Uppangala Subraya v. Bedradi Subraya v. Indian Cases 57(DB) = (1910); Saifuddin Sahib v. State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 853 and Abdur Rahman Mobashir and 3 others v. Syed Amir Ali Shah Bokhari and 4 others PLD 1978 Lah. 113 ref.

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

—O. VII, RAI—Rejection of plaint— Cause of action— Determination—Principles—For the purpose of determination whether plaint discloses a cause of action or not, Court has to presume that every averment made in the plaint is true—Besides the plaint, Court may also take into consideration certain admitted or uncontroverted material placed on record by defendant, the genuineness and veracity of which is beyond doubt and upon examining the same, Court comes to the conclusion that to continue with the suit would be a futile exercise or the case has been filed by plaintiff with manifest dishonesty of purpose, oblique object, to retain or claim benefit of such gain which plaintiff is not entitled to and to simply cause prejudice and harassment to defendant. [p. 541] D

S.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through legal heirs v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (Moin) through legal heirs 2002 SCMR 338, Jewan and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others 1994 SCMR 826; Messrs Noble (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi v. Federal Government Employees Housing Federation 2002 CLC 1670; Messrs Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Limited v. OTIS Elevation Company and 3 others 2000 CLC 1524 and Messrs Azeem and Sons v. Ministry of Defence and 3 others 2001 CLC 1339 rel.

top advocate from Larkana lawyer