Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Revision Application No.312. of 1984, decided on 3rd November, 1986.
---S.115 & O. VII, R.11--Revision pending against rejection of plaint- Subsequently fresh suit filed on same cause of action--Proceedings by way of revision, held, would be wholly misconceived where a separate suit in respect of same subject-matter had already been filed before competent Court for final decision.
Syed Inayat Ali for Applicant.
Qamar Muhammad Khan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1986.
From the facts, stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is quite clear that the present revision application is wholly misconceived. This revision has arisen out of an order passed by the trial Court in Suit No.800/1980 rejecting the plaint in the above suit under Order 7 rule 11, C.P.C., which was first unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in Civil Appeal No.207/1980. It is admitted by Mr. Syed Inayat Ali, the learned counsel for the applicant, that another suit No.4904 of 1980 was instituted by the appellant on 16-12-1980 immediately after rejection of the plaint in suit No.800/1980 by the trial Court which is still pending for final decision as a result of remand order passed by the 1st Appellate Court after setting aside the order of trial Court rejecting the plaint of suit No.4904/80. The subject matter of suit No.4904 of 1980 is the same property which was the subject of dispute in suit No.800/1980. In these circumstances, when a subsequently instituted (suit No.5904/1980) in respect of the same subject-matter is still pending, the proceedings by way of present revision application are wholly misconceived. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, expressed apprehension that as there is stay in the present revision application against dispossession of his client and this stay shall stand vacated as a result of dismissal of this revision application which may result in dispossession of his client from the property which is subject-matter of suit No.4904 of 1980. The apprehension of the learned counsel may be correct but for this reason he cannot be allowed to pursue a misconceived remedy. It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of present revision application will be no bar for the applicant to take any appropriate proceedings for interim relief to protect his possession during the pendency of the suit, if such a course is permitted under the law.
With these observations, the revision application is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
H . B . T . / M-82/ K Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer