Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 601 of 1982, decided on 9th February 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑4‑1982, in C. R. 612‑D/81).
-----Art. 185 (3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. II‑Rejection of plaint‑Order of trial Court rejecting plaint of subsequent suit on ground that an earlier suit of same nature had con cluded under O. VII, r. II, C. P. C.‑Held, unexceptionable.
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Respondents 4 in person.
Date of hearing: 9th February 1983.
Leave to appeal has been sought from the order, dated 27‑4‑1982 of Lahore High Court : whereby a civil revision petition was dismissed in limine.
Learned counsel states that the petitioner had withdrawn a suit, filed against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for specific performance of a contract of sale (on misrepresentation of facts by them). His subsequent suit for the same purpose failed on account of the rejection of the plaint under Order VII. rule 11, C. P. C. This rejection was disapproved by the appellate Court and the case was remanded. But the High Court later on restored the order of rejection. The petitioner's effect to seek review from the High Court also failed. Seeing no other alternation left, learned counsel further explained, the petitioner filed a fresh suit for the same relief, but, again he had failed on the ground that the petitioner had earlier failed upto the High Court.
It has been contended that, subject to the last suit being within limitation and other necessary conditions regarding court‑fee having been satisfied, the plaint could not again be rejected on the ground that an ear lier suit of similar nature had concluded under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. He has urged that the merits should also have been considered.
The learned trial Court did notice that the effective relief claimed this time was against‑newly added defendants‑the subsequent innocent vendees for consideration and that the plaint did not disclose a triable cause of action against them. That being so the plaint was rejected. If this position remains irrefutable, then the mere fact that the High Court this time, also relied on the earlier failure of the petitioner, would not make any practical difference. The grievance of the petitioner that his allegations against the vendors with regard to fraud and misrepresentation have not yet been tried, could be the subject‑matter in a suit for damages against them but as held by the learned trial Judge, in the circumstances of this case, it could not be made a basis for relief against the innocent purchasers.
With these observations we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
S. Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer