Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 545 of 1978, decided on 9th March, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑8‑1978 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4127 of 1978).

‑‑ O. VII, rr. 10 & 11 and O. XXXII, r. 2‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) ‑ Defendant filing application under O. VI, ff. 10 & 11 for rejection of plaint on ground of plaintiff being of unsound mind or in alternative appointment of suitable person as his next friend‑Defendant neither applying for taking plaint off record nor for holding enquiry about alleged unsoundness of plaintiff's mind ‑Application, held, rightly rejected in circumstances‑Leave to appeal refused.

Hakam Quraishi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 9th March, 1982.

.‑In a suit under the Specific Relief Act brought by Muhammad Hussain, etc., plaintiffs, an application was moved by Muhammad Younas, defendant No. 2 there, under Order VII, rules 10 and 11, C. P. C., on the ground that Muhammad Hussain was not of sound mind and as such his plaint be rejected or in the alternative a suitable person be appointed as his next friend. The application was rejected by the trial Court on 18‑2‑1978. Muhammad Younas went in revision but the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 27‑6‑1978, on the ground, inter alia that he had neither applied under Order XXXI1, rule 2, C. P. C. for taking the plaint off the record for holding an enquiry about the alleged unsoundness of mind of Muhammad Hussain. Muhammad Younas then brought a writ petition which too, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 19‑8‑1978. He now seeks leave to appeal through this petition.

2. Mr. Hakam Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, wants to rely on a new material, for the production of which he has moved a miscellaneous application. This material is a statement made before the Rent Controller on 28‑2‑1979 by Muhammad Shafi son of the said Muhammad Hussain. This statement being subsequent in time cannot be referred to for deciding the correctness of the order already passed by the Courts below. The Civil Court and the revisional Court had given their reasons for rejecting the A petitioners application and as such we are not inclined to interfere with the High Court's decision not to intervene in the matter in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.