WASEEM QAZI versus PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER, REVENUE, MATIARI
Claims 39 and 42 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VII, R l1 suit were dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it did not disclose the cause of action. And the case was banned under Sections 39 and 42 of the Special Relief Act, 1877. The plaintiff was claiming the right to inherit property in the lawsuit and the plaintiff cannot be dismissed without determining whether the plaintiff was claiming his right in the property, which could resolve the dispute. Providing the parties with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence in support of their claims, as the deceased owner's property was inherited by the four sons of his two brothers. Questioning regarding sales practices in fraud can be solved by combining evidence. While the right and the defense cannot be addressed, every accused in the plaintiff has to accept the charge as a cover, considering the plea for the plaintiff's rejection. O VII, R 11, rejecting the plaintiff under CPC Fact, saying that the defendant could not prove the allegations in the lawsuit, that he was good at rejecting the plaintiff's orders passed through the trial. The lower appellate court suffered material irregularities. The fact that there was no cause of action at the time of trial, therefore, there is a need to take into consideration the sale deeds and the circumstances in which the sale proceedings were executed, the High Court said. Has passed through both the courts below, setting aside the orders to dismiss the plaintiff. Both on material matters
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
