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.
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 105 of 1984 and 1353 of 1983, decided on 7th February, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑11‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in R. F. A. 7/67).
‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96‑Regular First Appeal before High Court‑High Court finding that in order to determine real controversy between parties it was necessary that an issue dealing directly with true controversy should be framed‑High Court after having framed said issue directing trial Court to give opportunity to parties to lead evidence thereon and transmit its findings together with evidence to High Court‑Held, order passed by High Court was just and fair and directed towards clarifying real controversy between parties‑Petition for leave to appeal before Supreme Court against order of High Court dismissed.
Jari Ullah Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. A. Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C. P, 105/84).
Nemo for Respondents (in C. P. 105/84).
Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioners (in C. P. 1353/83).
Jari ullah Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 20 and 21 (in C. P. 1353/83).
Date of hearing : 7th February, 1984.
The High Court, while hearing the regular first appeal reached the conclusion that in order to determine the real controversy between the parties it was necessary that an issue dealing directly with the true controversy should be framed. An issue was, accordingly, framed and the trial Court was directed to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence thereon and then to transmit its findings together with the evidence to the High Court before the 15th of February, 1982. This order was passed by the High Court on 19‑11‑1983. These two petitions have been filed to challenge the above order of the High Court.
We have heard Mr. Talib H. Rizvi and Mr. Jari Ullah Khan in support of their respective petitions.
We consider that the order passed by the High Court is just and fair and directed towards clarifying the real controversy between the parties.
Not fit cases for interference by this Court.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer