Code of Civil Procedure

  1. —Section 2(2) —decree—definition of—See Mudassar Hussain Shakir v. M. Basharat & another  2022 SCR 973 (A/1)
  2. — section 2 (2) — decree — Legislature itself included rejection of plaint in the term of ‘decree’ — the order of rejection of plaint therefore, has the force of decree itself and drawing the decree separately neither is a requirement of law nor its filing is essential Syed Talib Hussain Shah versus Syed Abid Hussain Shah & others 2023 SCR 904 (A)  
  3. S. 2 sub-sections 2 & 9 — Words “decree” and “judgment” defined — A decree means an order by one in authority, a judicial decision — The decision, given by the Courts of law can either be decrees or orders — Both must be formally expressed and be in precise and deliberate language. Nasim Bashir v. Abdul Jabbar 2003 SCR 536 (B)
  4. —sections 2(2) & 96, order VII, rule II—rejection of plaint—appeal—under section 2(2) rejection of plaint is included in the term of decree —the order of rejection of plaint has the force of decree itself—drawing of decree, neither requirement of law, nor essential—order of rejection of plaint is not adjudication on merits—the order by fiction of law is treated as decree and is appealable under section 96— Syed Asif Hussain Shah & 13 others v. Mian Shah & 43 others 2020 SCR 793 (A) 2007 SCMR 945 rel
  5. —Section 2(9) —Order XX Rules 4(2) and 5— judgment should contain the concise statement of the case, the points for determination which have been raised, the decision thereon and reasons for such decision. Muneeza Begum v. Maqsood Bi & others  2022 SCR 907 (A) 1986 SCMR 1736, PLD 1987 SC(AJ&K) 1, PLD 2015 Sindh 451 & PLD 2012 Lahore 790 ref.
  6. —Section 6—suit—institution of—pecuniary jurisdiction of Court—where the trial Court finds the subject matter of the suit more than the pecuniary jurisdiction, it loses its jurisdiction and shall refer the case in the mid of stream to the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction— the Court shall have no jurisdiction over the suits, the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limit (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction. Mushtaq Ahmed & others v. Ayesha Bagum alias Bangalan & others 2022 SCR 304 (A)
  7. —Sections 6 & 15—suit for possession—pecuniary jurisdiction— determination of—u/s 15, every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it— if the value of the subject-matter does not exceed Rs. 100,000/- the Civil Judge/Senior Civil Judge, being first original Court, is competent to try the case—mere on the opinion of the Court on a commission sent for the purpose of determination of value/cost of construction, that the value of the subject-matter is very high and Court-fees has not been paid, the trial Court may not have returned the plaint—the Court cannot be deprived of its pecuniary jurisdiction even if during the pendency of the suit, the subject-matter of the suit is found to be more than the pecuniary jurisdiction. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Ayesha Bagum alias Bangalan & others 2022 SCR 304 (B)
  8.  —Sections 6 & 15—pecuniary jurisdiction of Court— determination of —if the suit has commenced within the jurisdiction and later on the Court has formed the opinion that the value of the subject-matter is more than the amount beyond the jurisdiction, a decree for the full amount is still perfectly valid—had the Court considered that there was a matter of jurisdiction to be considered, it would have sought objections, framed a specific issue and would have decided it as a preliminary point. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Ayesha Bagum alias Bangalan & others 2022 SCR 304 (C)
  9.  —Sections 6 & 15—suits—pecuniary jurisdiction of Court— merely for the reason that if the Court has opined that value of subject-matter is very high and Court fee has not been paid then the Court may not have stayed its hands and returned the plaint to be presented in the competent Court, rather the said Court is also competent to try the suit. Mushtaq Ahmed & others v. Ayesha Bagum alias Bangalan & others 2022 SCR 304 (D)
  10. —Sections 6 & 15—Suits Valuation Act, 1887—Court Fee Act, 1870–determination of—suit for possession—the return of pliant on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction, even without framing of issues, having material, record pro and contra and without giving the plaintiff right of hearing— not justifiable— the matter of valuation of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction cannot be resolved in absence of the material, record, evidence and oral submissions of contesting parties. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Ayesha Bagum alias Bangalan & others 2022 SCR 304 (E)
  11.  S. 9 — Evacuee property — Civil Court competent to pass a pre-emption decree even in case of evacuee property — Bar to deal with evacuee property would be attracted only where the exercise of jurisdiction offends against the interests of the Custodian or Rehabilitation Authorities. Hassan Muhammad v. Muhammad Din 1997 SCR 292 (B)
  12.  S. 9 — See West Pakistan land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Chap. XI [Ss.135 to 150]. Zameer Begum v. Shakeela Begum 2012 SCR 29
  13. —Section 9—Evacuee property—jurisdiction of Civil Court—Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957—Section 41—contention that the Civil Court cannot grant a declaratory decree u/s 41 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957—Held: The jurisdiction of a civil Court is ousted only when declaration is sought against the Custodian. When there is a dispute of civil nature between the parties then the jurisdiction cannot claim to have been ousted. Syed Haji Shah  v. Irshad Ahmed Khan & others 2019 SCR 288 (A) 1997 SCR 292, ref
  14.  S. 10 — Necessary conditions for staying the suit — Not only the parties in both the suits must be the same but the questions involved should be identical. Muhammad Afsar Khan v. Mir Muhammad Khan 1997 SCR 54 (A)
  15. S. 10 — The parties not identical and the causes of action different in both the suits — It is in the fitness of things if trial in both the suits is carried side by side and disposed of simultaneously. Muhammad Afsar Khan and 2 others v. Mir Muhammad Khan 1997 SCR 168 (A)
  16. S. 10 — Multiplicity of suits — U/s 10 when cognizance is taken in a civil matter by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the matter at issue is between the same parties, no other court is competent to take cognizance of the same matter between the same parties to avoid conflicting decisions — It has always been the policy of law that multiplicity of suits — The practice to involve the parties in the same matter in litigation in different Courts is discouraged — S. 10 only bars trials and not the institutions of suits — Rent Controller should have to stay his hands till the decision of civil Court. Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi v. Zaheer Ahmad Qureshi & another 2006 SCR 32 (A)
  17. S. 10 — If a matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them litigating — The Court shall not include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of cause of action. Noor Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Bashir & 2 others 2009 SCR 572 (E)
  18. S. 10 — Consolidation of suits — The trial Court has inherent powers to consolidate two suits in proper cases to avoid the multiplicity of litigation and contradictory decrees but the exercise of powers of the Court depends upon the fact of particular case and if a case has been decided or is at the verge of final disposal and the other suit about the same property is at initial stage or has been filed and the previous suit is near completion, consolidation cannot be ordered under the pretext of section 10 C.P.C. Manzoor Hussain & 6 others v. Muhammad Azeem 2010 SCR 311 (B)   
  19. Section 11 CPC — Res judicata — Determination of — Cause of action important — The rule of res judicata is based on the principle that there must be some end to the litigation and the parties are not to be vexed twice for the same cause. Held: The question of cause of action is important for determining the question of res judicata — If the matter involved is based on different cause of action, there will be no res judicata and if the matter is finally adjudicated, fresh suit on the same cause of action constitutes res judicata. Further held: To constitute res judicata it is essential that a matter must be directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit. Sakhiullah v. Habibullah 2011 SCR 133 (A & B) PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 139 and NLR 2004 SCJ 409 rel.
  20. S. 11 — Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42 — Suit for declaration — Principle of res judicata — Applicability — Scope — Application filed by defendants for partition of suit property was accepted and order of partition had attained finality up to the Financial Commissioner; and ultimately the writ petition in the in the High Court was dismissed — High Court and lower courts reached to the conclusion that in presence of decision of the Revenue Authorities in respect of the same land between the same parties, the principle of res judiciata was attracted in the case and that application filed by the plaintiff was hit by the principle of res judicata — Counsel for the plaintiff had contended that the principle of res judicata would not apply to the suit, if it was previously decided by a Tribunal or Revenue Authorities; that principle of res judicata was only applicable, if the matter had been finally decided in a previous suit by the civil court — Contention was repelled — Principle of res judicata was fully applicable to the proceedings other than civil suits, such as the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities — Partition proceedings initiated by defendants attained finality from the court of Revenue Assistant to the Financial Commissioner; and then in writ petition in respect of the same land between the same parties, which was the subject matter in the present suit — Suit, in circumstances, was hit by the principle of res judicata, and was validly dismissed by the court below and maintained by the High Court on that ground. Punoo Khan v. Iqbal Begum and 19 others 2012 SCR 196 (A, B & D) Abdul Ghani Farooqi v. Chairman, AJ&K Council and 2 others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1527 and Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan v. Brig. (R) Muhammad Akbar and 7 others 2007 SCR 142 (Sic) ref.
  21. S. 11 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act (XI of 1993), S. 5. Iqra v. Abuzar 2012 SCR 284 (F)
  22. S. 11 — Res judicata — Principle — The principle of res judicata is based on the principle that same cause should not be tried for the second time between the same parties and there must be an end to the litigation between the parties — The principle is that since the cause of action in a suit merges in the judgment, therefore, no second suit can be filed on the bases of same cause of action unless it is shown that it was recurring in nature. M. Najeeb v. M. Javed 2013 SCR  172 (E)
  23. —Section 11—Order II, Rule 2—rejection of plaint–attraction of res-judicata—examination of pleadings —questions of facts cannot be decided in vacuum— The question of applicability of principle of res judicata and Order II, Rule 2, CPC, was to be examined in light of the evidence brought on the record and examination of earlier pleadings. These questions being questions of fact cannot be decided in vacuum. Shahzada Begum & others  v. Syed Talib Hussain Shah & others 2019 SCR 273 (B)
  24. Cancellation of decree — Maintainability of suit and application under section 12(2), CPC — After the promulgation of section 12(2), CPC, whether the suit for cancellation of decree is competent or not has to be looked into in the light of section 12(2), CPC — Section 12(2), CPC postulates that where a person challenges the validity of judgment, decree or an order of the basis of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction, he shall seek his remedy by making an application to the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order and not by a separate suit — Held: If any person challenges a decree on any of these grounds, then he must file an application under section 12(2), CPC — But when the validity of a judgment, decree or an order is challenged on other grounds apart from those mentioned in section 12(2), CPC, then a suit for cancellation of decree can competently be filed. M. Bashir Khan v. Muhammad Sharif & 8 others 2011 SCR 214 (C)
  25. Consent decree — Its cancellation by filing civil suit or application under section 12(2), CPC — Powers of civil Courts — Consent decree inoperative on the rights of plaintiff-Question can be resolved after taking evidence — Questions of fake and fictitious decree and fraud can be looked into by the Court under section 12(2), CPC but the other questions can be resolved by a Court in a civil suit — Held: The civil Courts are the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction, possess vast powers to entertain the suits for cancellation of collusive decrees and resolve the same including the question of fraud — Further held: An application under section 12(2), CPC as well as the suit for setting aside an ex parte consent decree is competent. M. Bashir Kh. v. M. Sharif 2011 SCR 214 (D &E)
  26. S. 12(2) — Proceedings — Maintainability of application — The application under said section shall be filed in the Court or Tribunal, to which the proceedings of C.P.C. are applicable. M. Iqbal and another v. Muhammad Younis and 7 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 879 (A)
  27. S. 12(2) — AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978, O. 1, R.2(1),(5) — Proceedings before Supreme Court — Maintainability of application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. — Moot point — Held: Application of C.P.C. has been expressly barred in relation to any proceedings before Supreme Court — As the CPC was not applicable to the proceedings before Supreme Court, the application under Section 12(2), CPC for setting aside impugned decree or judgment of Supreme Court was not maintainable — In instant case, appeals had been dismissed which upholding judgments/decrees of Courts below, therefore, said application under Section 12(2), CPC  was not maintainable — Same should have been filed before the Court which passed the final judgment and decree — Application under Section 12(2), CPC dismissed. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12(2) CPC IN SUPREME COURT — (Maintainability) In instant case appeals had been dismissed by Supreme Court upholding the judgments/decrees of subordinate Courts. Application under Section 12(2), CPC should have been filed in the Court which passed the final judgment/decree. M. Iqbal and another v. M. Younis and 7 others 2013 SCR 879 (C)
  28. Section 12(2), CPC — application — limitation of — limitation for filing the application under section 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code the prescribed limitation for filing the application is 3 years. Ch. Muhammad Zaman v. Amir Hanif & 19 others 2014 SCR 1571 (A)
  29. Section 12 (2) — a person may challenge the decree on the ground that the decree has been obtained by playing fraud, by misrepresentation or the Court had no jurisdiction to issue the same. Mst. Bibi Haider Jan (deceased ) through L.H. v. Syed Waqas H. Shah & 5 others 2016 SCR 1347 (A)
  30. Section 12 (2) — application — maintainability of — if a person challenges a judgment, decree or order only on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, he shall seek the remedy by filing an application before the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order and not by filing a separate suit. Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Rafique & 19 others 2016 SCR 525 (A)
  31.  Suit for cancellation of — consent decree — maintainability of — the plaintiff-respondents also challenged the validity of the judgment and decree on the others grounds apart from those mentioned in section 12(2) CPC — Held: the suit was competently filed. Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Rafique & 19 others 2016 SCR 525 (B) 2011 SCR 214 rel.
  32. —Section 12(2)—challenge to judgment/decree passed ex-parte—grounds of attack—want of jurisdiction, one of three grounds—earlier defendants-respondents filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, and attacked suit on ground of jurisdiction—application rejected, order of trial Court not challenged, and same attained finality—Later on, the ground of jurisdiction cannot be raised in application under section 12(2) CPC—After going through the statutory provision (supra), it appears that the remedy provided under section 12(2) CPC, will be available only in respect of cases where the ground of attack is based on fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction. From the scrutiny of the record, it transpires that earlier the respondents, herein, moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, for rejection of the plaint and raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The trial Court had not accepted the claim of the respondents and rejected the said application. It is an admitted fact that the order passed by the trial Court was not challenged by the respondents, meaning thereby that the same had attained finality. In such state of affairs, we agree with the stance taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that the point of jurisdiction is no more available to the respondents. Tanveer Khan & others vs District Judge & others  2018 SCR 1071  (A)
  33. —Section 12(2), CPC—Challenge to judgment/decree—-grounds for challenging of judgment/decree—respondents put whole responsibility on their counsel for ex-parte decree—counsel not arrayed as party—act of counsel act of party—no case of misrepresentation— We have also given our serious thought to the other points raised in the application filed under section 12(2), CPC. After going through the contents of application it appears that the respondents put whole responsibility on the shoulders of their counsel but surprisingly the concerned counsel has not been arrayed as party in the line of the respondents and the respondents have also not brought on record anything in support of this contention. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly argued that the respondents duly engaged the counsel and under law, the act done by the counsel shall be presumed to be the act done by the party. In absence of any evidence in respect of the plea of fraud the trial Court was justified to reject the application. Similarly, it is not case of the respondents that ex-parte decree has been obtained by making misrepresentation. Tanveer Khan & others vs District Judge & others  2018 SCR 1071 (B)
  34. —Section 12(2)—challenge to ex-parte decree—defendant-respondents, appeared through duly engaged counsel—failed to file written statements even after having considerable opportunities—then absented themselves from the Court—- careful scrutiny of record, it appears that on filing of the suit by the appellants after due service of notice some of the respondents appeared in the Court but despite getting considerable opportunities failed to file the written statement and later on absented themselves from the Court, whereupon, the trial Court passed the ex-parte order. As the application filed by the respondents for setting aside the ex-parte decree does not fulfil the requirement of law as has been discussed hereinabove, therefore, we are of the view that the trial Court very wisely rejected the same, whereas, the learned District Judge, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by the trial Court without adhering to the parameters laid down in section 12(2), CPC, which are limited in nature and same illegality has been committed by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment. Tanveer Khan & others vs District Judge & others  2018 SCR 1071 (C) –
  35. — Section 12(2) — Limitation Act, 1908 — Article 181 — application — limitation for — no limitation u/s 12(2) CPC prescribed for presentation of such application, hence, it falls under Art. 181 and can be filed within a period of three years from the date of knowledge — application filed after 44 years — petitioner, of disclosure the —‘ چند ہفتے قبل سائالن کو معلوم ہوا’ mentioned merely exact date is necessary to ascertain whether the lis has been instituted within time or not — Waheed Akhtar & others vs Muhammad Tariq & others 2024 SCR 116 (A)
  36. — Section 12(2) — application — maintainability of — necessary ingredients — for maintainability of application, ingredients are (plea) of fraud; (ii) misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction — for invoking section 12(2), it is to be shown that the impugned judgment and decree is result of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction — Waheed Akhtar & others vs Muhammad Tariq & others 2024 SCR 116(B)
  37.  Section 12(2) — application — maintainability of — the provisions are not attracted when alleged fraud or misrepresentation was not in connection with the proceedings of the Court — fraud must have been committed with the Court or during proceedings in the Court — application u/s 12(2), CPC shall only lie if judgment /decree was obtained by a party either by fraud or by practicing misrepresentation with the Court — fraud played in execution of sale deed before institution of suit, the provisions of section 12(2) CPC not attracted. Waheed Akhtar & others vs Muhammad Tariq & others 2024 SCR 116 (C&D)
  38. –Sections 13 and 44-A—Foreign judgments—status of–executions of foreign decrees in AJ&K—procedure for — section 13, CPC does not deal with the matter of execution of decrees rather it deals with the status and conclusiveness of foreign judgment— mere conclusive status of foreign judgment itself is no ground that the same is executable in foreign territory without complying with the requirement of provisions of section 44-A–under section 44, for executions of such decrees reciprocal arrangements between Govt. of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are required—Basic requirement is the declaration through a notification to be published in official gazette by both the Govt. according to the spirit of Explanation 2 of section 44A, CPC. Yasir Bashir v. Saba Yasir & others 2019 SCR 1 (E & F)
  39. — Sections 13, 44-A and 47, CPC—execution of foreign decrees—argument that the contested decree is conclusive, hence, executable—held: there is no cavil with this but it deals with the execution process for the purpose that such decree is conclusive and no objection can be raised before the executing Court according to the provisions of section 47 if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that such decree does not fall within any exception specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13— Sub section 3 of section 44-A  clarifies the legal position that the decree which is contested and does not fall within any exception of section 13 is deemed conclusive— otherwise the executing Court has power to attend the objection raised and determine the same according to section 44-A. Yasir Bashir v. Saba Yasir & others 2019 SCR 1 (G)
  40. —Sections 13 and 44-A—Foreign judgments—status of–executions of foreign decrees in AJ&K—procedure for — section 13, CPC does not deal with the matter of execution of decrees rather it deals with the status and conclusiveness of foreign judgment— mere conclusive status of foreign judgment itself is no ground that the same is executable in foreign territory without complying with the requirement of provisions of section 44-A–under section 44, for executions of such decrees reciprocal arrangements between Govt. of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are required—Basic requirement is the declaration through a notification to be published in official gazette by both the Govt. according to the spirit of Explanation 2 of section 44A, CPC. Yasir Bashir v. Saba Yasir & others 2019 SCR 1 (E & F)
  41. — Sections 13, 44-A and 47, CPC—execution of foreign decrees—argument that the contested decree is conclusive, hence, executable—held: there is no cavil with this but it deals with the execution process for the purpose that such decree is conclusive and no objection can be raised before the executing Court according to the provisions of section 47 if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that such decree does not fall within any exception specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13— Sub section 3 of section 44-A  clarifies the legal position that the decree which is contested and does not fall within any exception of section 13 is deemed conclusive— otherwise the executing Court has power to attend the objection raised and determine the same according to section 44-A. Yasir Bashir v. Saba Yasir & others 2019 SCR 1 (G)
  42.  Ss.15 to 25 — Suit filing of — A suit or cause has to be filed in a Court of law where the defendant personally resides or works for gain — Suit can be transferred from one Court to another on the grounds mentioned in the said sections. Ch. M. Sadiq v. Mujahid H. Naqvi  2008 SCR 313 (A)
  43. S. 19 — If wrong done to the plaintiff or to his moveable property was done within the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the local limits of jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts. AKMIDC v. Akber Ali Malik 1999 SCR 476 (B)
  44. Suit filed for recovery of ornaments worth Rs. 2,50, 000/ — District Judge returned the plaint for presenting it before proper Court basing his reason on rule 6 of Family Courts Rules, 1965 and rule 4 of Family Courts Procedure Rules, 1998 — Revision filed in High Court was accepted — Appeal filed — Held: That suit is of civil nature and is governed by the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of C.P.C. — It does not fall within the category of cases which fall within the jurisdiction of Family Court under section 5 of Family Courts  Act. Madhia Aftab v. Khawar Hanif  2006 SCR 190 (A)
  45. S. 20 — Transfer of civil cases — High Court power of — Held: It is the option of the plaintiff to choose the forum for instituting the suit — Where cause of action wholly or partly arose. Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Shaukat Zaman Khan 1998 SCR 111 (B)
  46. S. 20 — Every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant or defendants reside or where they personally work for gain or where cause of action wholly or in part arose. AKMIDC v. Akber Ali Malik 1999 SCR 476 (A)
  47. S. 20 — All classes of suits can be filed in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action arises, either wholly or in part. Abdul Ghafoor and Brothers, Contractors v. Natural Food and Reverage (Pvt) Ltd  and 2 others 2000 SCR 606 (A)
  48. S. 20 (A),(B),(C) — Civil Court — Jurisdiction of — Even a fraction of cause of action is a part of cause of action if it accrues within local limits of a Court that Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Shaukat Zaman Khan 1998 SCR 111 (A)
  49. S. 24 — Transfer of case — May be ordered on the application of a party in which case notice is issued, parties are heard and order is passed or it may be ordered by the District Judge or the High Court on its own motion for which no notice to any party is required — Such transfer is generally for administrative reasons but all the same it was observed that even though the transfer may be for administrative reasons, it is still an order u/s 24 and, therefore, a judicial order — Be the order of transfer of case from one Circuit to another an administrative or judicial, if the proceedings have been initiated on the application of a party, then the party who is being adversely affected by the transfer must be heard and should not be deprived of its right of natural justice. Siddiqui Flour & General Mills (Pvt.) Limited v. Azad Govt. 2004 SCR 514 (A) AIR 1957 Rajesthan 255 rel.
  50. S. 35 — Costs — Costs incurred in a suit cannot be claimed by a separate suit after the decision in which costs have been incurred. Shamim Akhtar and 14 others v. Fatima Bi 2002 SCR 55 (A)
  51.  Section 35-A — Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences — Before a party could be imposed exemplary costs there must be a finding that averments made by one party or the other were patently vexatious which gave no legal foundation for the prosecution  or defence of a particular cause. M. Shafique Khan v. AJ&K Govt. and 6 others 2000 SCR 235 (A)
  52. Sections 35 & 35-A — The order challenged cannot be legally justified by sections 35 & 35-A — If a totally insupportable and frivolous order is passed by a respondent special costs can be awarded without reference to section 35 & 35-A — Orders quashed by the High Court were totally insupportable and frivolous-High Court acted with jurisdiction in imposing costs. D.G. Health Services v. Muhammad Tariq Aziz and 2 others 2000 SCR 256 (B)
  53. —Section 44-A—execution of decrees passed by Courts of Pakistan can only be executed in AJ&K while complying with the provisions of Section 44-A—Basic requirement of this provision is that the Govt. of Pakistan and AJ&K have to make reciprocal arrangements for execution of decrees by notification to be published in the official gazette. Yasir Bashir v. Saba Yasir & others 2019 SCR 1 (C)
  54. Section 47, 104 and 151 — Execution of decree — Order passed under section 47 by the executing Court relating to execution or satisfaction of the decree is appealable under section 104 CPC — An application under section 151 CPC to executing Court to challenge the execution proceedings is incompetent — The legal point, whether the order passed by the executing Court is appealable under the provisions of section 47  of CPC as held by the High Court and an application under section 151 CPC is incompetent — The perusal of the order of the executing Court reveals that executing Court passed the order of satisfaction of the decree in the light of provisions of section 47 of CPC — The codal provision makes it clear that the question of satisfaction of decree falls within the domain of executing Court and order passed under section 47 of the CPC is appealable as visualized in section 104 of the CPC. Held: Therefore, in the light of the codal provisions, the High Court has rightly observed in the impugned judgment that in case of order of satisfaction of a decree no application under section 151 CPC is competent because the order is appealable. Abdul Latif & 2 others v. Muhammad Rahim Khan & 12 others 2011 SCR 239 (A)
  55. —Sections 51 & 52—inherent powers—exercise of— decree—clerical mistake—correction of—mis-description of property/acreage of property—any party may approach the concerned Court for correction of such clerical mistake under inherent powers of the Courts vested bythe provisions of sections 151 or 152. Azad Govt. & others vs Muhammad Amin 2018 SCR 1006 (C)
  56. Section 75 CPC read with order XVIII, Rules 9, 10, 18 and order XXVI  Rule 9, CPC — Commissions — Civil Court under the provisions can appoint commission — Report of commission can be considered along with other evidence — Spot inspection by commission with the agreement of parties — Subsequently cannot deviate from agreed stance — Under section 75, CPC read with Order XVIII rules 9 ,10 & 18 and Order XXVI, rule 9 CPC, civil Court can appoint commission or ask for a report after spot inspection and base its findings according to the report or take into consideration the report along with other evidence — Where parties agree for appointment of commission to determine any fact or disputed controversies, the Court remains under its jurisdiction to issue a commission for local investigation/inspection to direct the same if it deems it proper — The basic requirement of law is that the report cannot be relied for recording a judgment by the civil Court — The evidence of the parties have to be considered to determine the comparative merit. Held: Report of commission can be disputed but on limited grounds. Further held: Once the parties agreed for report through spot inspection by the commission, the parties so agreed cannot deviate from their agreed stance and ask the Court that the report of the commission is not accepted. Wazir Hussain Shah & 7 others v. Ali Shan & 3 others 2011 SCR 1 (D)
  57. –Section 75read with Order XXVI— appointment of Commission—inherent jurisdiction of the Civil Court —to appoint the Commission— The Civil Court is vested with the jurisdiction to appoint the Commission at any time while exercising the powers u/s 75 of C.P.C., read with O, XXVI, CPC. This power can be exercised for ascertaining the true position on spot in respect of the subject matter of dispute. The Civil Court even otherwise, has inherent jurisdiction to appoint the Commission for coming to just decision in the civil cases. Qamar Alam & others vs Malik Naseem & others 2018 SCR 1249 (A)
  58. S. 80 — Purpose of — It does not in any way create a right of action which has to be established in accordance with the sustentative law — Held: Procedural precondition to filing of suit against Govt. or public officer. AJK Govt. & others v. Syed M. Akbar Shah 2005 SCR 403 (A)
  59. S. 80 — Object of — S. 80 is to give time to public officer and Govt. at highest official level to reconsider the matter involved in cases where the suit has already been instituted to defend the suit or to conceal the claim of plaintiff. AJK Govt.others v. Syed M. Akbar Shah 2005 SCR 403 (B)
  60. S. 80 — Non-issuance of notice before filing a suit against Govt. Held: Suit cannot be dismissed for failure to issue a notice. AJK Govt. & others v. Syed M. Akbar Shah 2005 SCR 403 (C)
  61. — section 91 — General Clauses Act, 1897— section 2 (44) — Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 — section 268 — writ in representative capacity — maintainability of — public nuisance — term ‘Public Nuisance’ is not defined in CPC, however, u/s 2 (44) of General Clauses Act, it is to be given the same meaning as is assigned to it by section 268 PPC, which defines Public Nuisance as any act or illegal omission which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessary cause injury, obstructions, danger or annoyance to persons who have occasion to use any public right. Under section 91, CPC, such type of legal action is required to be initiated with consent of Advocate General in writing — Imtiaz Hussain Shah & 15 others versus Secretary Public Works & others 2023 SCR 625 (D)2018 SCR 1220
  62. Section 92. CPC — Suit relating to religious or charitable trust — prior approval of advocate general mandatory — non-compliance of the provisions of section 92 CPC makes the suit incompetent. Mosque Committee v. M. Usman & others 2015 SCR 845 (A) PLD 1989 283 rel.
  63. S. 94 — This section can operate only if the rules are made in consequence thereof. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v.  D.F.O. Muzaffarabad 1994 SCR 44 (A)
  64. S. 94 — Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 145 — Procedure where dispute concerning land was likely to cause breach of peace — Constitution of simultaneous proceedings under S. 94, C.P.C. and that under S. 145, Cr.P.C. — Validity — Issuance of interim injunction by the civil court — Both the parties in the case, had approached the civil court through independent suits — Interim injunction had been issued by the civil court — Not a single incident of breach of peace had occurred during the last decade — Continuation of proceedings under S. 145, Cr.P.C in such situation, not only would amount to misuse of process of law and courts and wastage of time, but also to drag the parties into uncalled for litigation — Apprehension of conflicting findings of the civil court and criminal court could not be ruled out; for the ends of justice and avoiding such hardships and an anomalous situation, proceedings in civil and criminal court could not run simultaneously — When the possession of the disputed property was regulated by civil court, the continuation of proceedings under S. 145, Cr.P.C., were not proved. Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Rahim Khan and 2 others 2012 SCR 156 (C) Muhammad Nazir Khan’s case 1997 MLD 2055; 1983 PCr.LJ 2590; Suleman Khan v. Abdul Aziz and 33 others 1983 PCr.LJ 2590; Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and others PLD 1970 SC 470 and Mehr Muhammad Sarwar and others v. The State and 2 others PLD 1985 SC 240 rel.
  65. S. 94 & O.XL — Power of the Court to pass necessary orders for the purpose of preventing the ends of justice from being defeated -can pass only such orders as prescribed by rules — S.94 not penal in nature. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. D.F.O. Muzaffarabad 1994 SCR 44 (B)
  66.  S. 94 & O.XL — Application for appointment of receiver is not necessary Court should be seized of the case. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v.  D.F.O. Muzaffarabad 1994 SCR 44 (D)
  67. S. 94 & O.XL, R.I — Criminal Procedure Code(V of 1898), S. 145 — Powers of civil court for issuance of interim injunction, attachment of the property and appointment of receiver — Provision of S. 94, C.P.C. and that of S. 145, Cr.P.C. — Comparison — Legislature had vested the civil court with vast powers, not only for issuance of interim injunction, but included the powers of attachment of the property and appointment of the receiver in respect of dispute regarding the property — Civil court was empowered to issue any order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated including the appointment of a receiver of a property in question and to enforce the performance of duties by attaching and selling his property; and all other interlocutory orders as could appear to the court to be just and convenient — Comparison of the legal provisions of S. 145, Cr. P.C. and S. 94, C.P.C., in juxtaposition would help to observe that the powers of attachment, under S. 145, Cr.P.C., were limited and bound by certain limits; whereas powers vested under S. 94, C.P.C., were much wider and comprehensive — If at any stage of  proceeding a situation would arise, demanding the attachment of property and appointment of receiver, the powers could be best used by the civil court — Parties were always at liberty to apply to the civil court in that regard; and if they succeeded in making out a case for application of the provision of S. 94, C.P.C. read with O.XL, C.P.C., the court could proceed according to law — Simultaneous continuation of proceedings under S. 145, Cr.P.C. along with civil suit would not serve any just cause or to be fruitful or beneficial for any of the parties. M. Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Rahim Khan and 2 others 2012 SCR 156 (B)
  68. S. 96 — First appeal — No limitations have been laid down u/s 96 — An aggrieved party can file an appeal on any ground both legal as well as factual — However, for second appeal the scope of right of appeal is limited — An aggrieved party can avail second appeal as of right only on three grounds: i)             That the decision under appeal is contrary to law or usage having the force of law;ii)            That the Court while recording decision has failed to determine some material issues of law or usage having the force of law; and iii)        That a substantial error or defect was committed by the Courts below contrary to the procedure contained in the Civil Procedure Code which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Held: The High Court was justified in law in holding that the appeal is against the provisions of section 100 of the C.P.C. is not maintainable. Allah Rakhi v. M. Zaman 2003 SCR 474 (A)
  69. S. 96 — No limitations have been laid down in the first appeal — Aggrieved party can file an appeal on any ground both legal as well as factual — However for second appeal the scope of right of appeal is limited — Scope of appeal discussed — S. 100 — Second appeal — The high Court was justified in law in holding that appeal is against the provisions contained in section 100 C.P.C. therefore is not maintainable. Allah Rakhi v. Muhammad Zaman 2004 SCR 100 (A)
  70. S. 96 — under section 96, CPC an appeal lies from the decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction. Murtaza Hussain v. Abdul Aziz & 2 others 2014 SCR 1091 (A)
  71. S. 96 — Held: under S.96, CPC, the appeal can be filed from the decree passed by a Court exercising original jurisdiction and not the revisional or appellate jurisdiction. Murtaza Hussain v. Abdul Aziz & 2 others 2014 SCR 1091 (B) 1995 CLC 1453, 2001 MLD 414, 2004 SCMR 1638 & 2006 MLD 210. rel.
  72. Section 96 — appeal — competency of — plaint was rejected by the District Judge in revisional jurisdiction and not in original jurisdiction, Held: The appeal before the High Court was not competent. Murtaza Hussain v. Abdul Aziz & 2 others 2014 SCR 1091 (C)
  73. — section 96— appeal against decree of — rejection of plaint — the appeal u/s 96, CPC is competent against decree, not again the judgment and filing of decree sheet is mandatory, however, in case of rejection of plaint, the judgment is decreed by fiction of law as decree and there is no need to draw up a specific decree — if the decree is prepared, even then, filing of same is not required under law.Syed Talib Hussain Shah versus Syed Abid Hussain Shah & others 2023 SCR 904 (B)
  74. — Section 96 — an appeal lies from the decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction Abdul Qayyum Khan versus Muhammad Miskeen & others 2023 SCR 934  a
  75. — section 96 — appeal can be filed against the decree passed by a Court exercising original jurisdiction and not revisional or appellate jurisdiction.  Abdul Qayyum Khan versus Muhammad Miskeen & others 2023 SCR 934 (A)
  76. — section 96 — first appeal u/s 96 is only competent if the Court has passed a decree in original jurisdiction and a decree passed in revisional jurisdiction is not appealable. Abdul Qayyum Khan versus Muhammad Miskeen & others 2023 SCR 934 (D & E) 2004 SCMR 1638 ref., 2006 MLD 2010 & 2022 SCR 664
  77. —Section 96 read with s. 2(2) — appeal against consolidated judgment and decree— consolidate judgment and decrees— if one or more suits in respect of the same subject matter are filed and the suits are consolidated and disposed of through a consolidated judgment, then one appeal is competent— In the case where the subject matter of the suits is different, separate suits are filed and tried separately, one appeal is not competent—separate appeals have to filed. Munshi Khan & others v. Mehboob Khan 2017 SCR 129 (A)
  78. Party inviting Court to adopt a procedure not contemplated by CPC — Cannot subsequently blame the Court for following such procedure — Principle of estoppels — Its applicability — Consent decree — Principle of section 96(3) CPC — Estoppel by conduct — Applicable — No appeal against consent decree — Held: The party inviting the Court to adopt a procedure not contemplated by the Civil Procedure Code in deciding suits, cannot subsequently blame the Court for following such procedure. Wazir Hussain Shah & 7 others v. Ali Shan & 3 others 2011 SCR 1 (A)
  79. Where both the parties agree for adjudication of a case by adopting a particular procedure, the decree passed is consent decree and definitely. Held: It is not open to either party to appeal from it —the reasons for insertion of section 96(3) are that a party after having consented to an agreed decision cannot appeal against the same. Further held: Apart from technical bar in respect of appeal against the decision based on consent, the party challenging such a decision cannot be allowed to argue that the Court passing the order did not follow correct procedure in deciding the matter. Wazir Hussain Shah & 7 others v. Ali Shan & 3 others 2011 SCR 1 (B)
  80. —Section 96—u/s 96 an appeal lies from the decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction—appeal can be filed against the decree passed by a Court exercising original jurisdiction and not revisional or appellate jurisdiction. Amjid Hussain v. M. Ramzan & others 2022 SCR 919 (A, B, C & D)
  81. —Section 96—appeal—plaint rejected by the Additional District Judge under Order VII, rule 11, CPC, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, held: the appeal before High Court was not competent. Amjid Hussain v. M. Ramzan & others 2022 SCR 919 (E)
  82. —Section 96—Order VII, Rule 11—appeal from original decree—Addl. District Judge rejected plaint under order VII rule 11 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction—u/s 96, an appeal lies from the decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction and not revisional or appellate jurisdiction—appeal before High court held not maintainable. Abid Hussain  v Khalid Hussain & others 2020 SCR 664 (A, B & C)  2014 SCR 1091 rel.
  83. —Sections 96, 97, 100, 104 and 105—govern the competency of appeal—First appeal and second appeal—competency of—first appeal competent against decree or order—which falls within purview of section 96 or 104 read with Order XLIII, CPC. Second appeal only against the decree passed by the first appellate Court— The order passed under Order XVII, Rule 3 is not specifically categorized to be appealable. The statutory provisions of Civil Procedure Code governing the competency of appeal are sections 96, 97, 100, 104 and 105. The first appeal is competent against both; the decree or order which falls within purview of section 96 or 104 read with Order XLIII, CPC. However, so far as the competency of second appeal is concerned, it is only confined to a decree passed by the first appellate Court. Hukam Dad v. Muhammad Tariq through L.H. & others 2017 SCR 252 (B)
  84. S. 100 Concurrent findings of fact- By the courts below and also High Court -Ccannot be interfered by the Supreme Court unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence. Muhammad Sultan  v. Mst. Hanifa Begum 1992 SCR 87 (C)
  85. S. 100 Concurrent findings of the Courts below on the question of fact not open to challenge unless suffers from the defect of non-reading or mis-reading of evidence. Mst. Amina Bibi v. Mumtaz Ali 1992 SCR 154 (A)
  86. S. 100 – Second appeal- This section does not permit the second appeal against the concurrent finding of fact subject to thee condition that such finding of fact should not have been based on no evidence or mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence on record. Mst. Rehmat Jan v. Muhammad Qasim 1993 SCR 13 (A)
  87. S. 100 — Second Appeal — Concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and first appellate Court can only be disturbed in second appeal if there is mis-reading or non-reading of evidence. Mst. Nazir Begum v. Muhammad Ayub & others 1993 SCR 321 (A)
  88. U/s. 100 — High Court rightly held that second appeal against concurrent findings of Courts below not lie, particularly when such findings do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence. Karam Dad and 3 others  v. Barkat Jan and 10 others 2002 SCR 155 (B)
  89. S. 100 — Second appeal — Right of second appeal is available on a question of law — On facts it can be availed only if the findings are result of misreading or non-reading of evidence going to the root of the case. Mst. Sharifa Begum & 4 others v. Ali Afsar Khan 2006 SCR 19 (A)
  90. S. 100 — Second appeal — Finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court at variance with that of trial Court — Finding of appellate Court ordinarily prevails — It would not possess same value or sanctity of concurrent finding — The finding of first appellate Court will be preferred only if it is found to be substantial by evidence on record and supported by logical reasoning — The finding at variance will naturally be compared with the trial Court — If found that the finding of the first appellate Court is based on strong, cogent evidence and is confidence inspiring only then preference should be given — Preference cannot be given merely on the ground that it is the finding of the appellate Court. M. Irshad & others v. Mst. Hanifa Begum & 8 others 2006 SCR 358 (A)
  91. S. 100 — Second appeal — The scope of second appeal is confined only to the grounds stated in section 100 C.P.C. Safdar Ali Khan v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 250 (E)
  92. S. 100 — Second Appeal — Concurrent findings of facts — Interference with — Scope — Normally, the concurrent findings of facts are not disturbed by the High Court in second appeal but this is not an absolute rule — It is now settled that the concurrent findings of facts can be disturbed by the High Court or even by Supreme Court if from the record it appears that the same have been recorded upon the wrong interpretation of evidence of mis-reading or non-reading of evidence is evident from the record.  Aziza Begum v. M. Hussain Khan through L.H. 2013 SCR  563 (A)
  93. — section 100 — competency of second appeal — Held: second appeal against the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below is only competent if any misreading or non-reading of the evidence is pointed out or departure from any law or rules is shown. Qazi Muhammad Ishaque v. Sain Muhammad (deceased) represented by legal heirs & others 2023 SCR 216 (E) 1998 SCR 235, 2003 SCR 28, 2014 SCR 1494 & 2019 SCR 339 ref.
  94. S. 100, O. XLI, R.31 — See AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S.42. Mst. Sardar Begum and others v. Muhammad Ilyas and others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 433 (B)
  95. Section 104 — matter of interim relief — No second appeal lies against the order passed by the District Judge on appeal but it is the duty of the Court that if the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation and if it appears that the subordinate Courts have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, then held  the High Court shall treat the appeal as a revision petition. M. Farooq v. Pervaiz Muzaffar & others 2016 SCR 665 (A)
  96. Section 104(2) — Difference between Order and Decree — If an order is not appealable as a decree but all the same it is appealable as an order, only one appeal is competent under section 104(2), C.P.C. if an order is appealable as a decree, more than one appeals are competent subject to other provisions of the said code. Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Hamid and 33 others 2000 SCR 419 (C)
  97. —section 104 (2)—order passed by first appellate Court—falling within purview of section 104 not further appealable—Under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 104, CPC, the order passed by first appellate Court in appeal falling within purview of section 104 is not further appealable. Hukam Dad v. Muhammad Tariq through L.H. & others 2017 SCR 252 (C)
  98. —application for setting aside ex-parte decree—rejected by trial Court—no decree passed—order is expressly appealable under section 104 read with Order XLIII, r.2, clause (C)—second appeal is barred under section 104(2)—According to the facts of this case, as the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was rejected by the trial Court and no decree was passed , thus , the order is expressly appealable under the provision of section 104 read with clause (C) of Rule 1, Order XLIII CPC. Against the order passed on such appeal by the first appellate Court further appeal is barred under sub-section (2) of section 104, CPC. Hukam Dad v. Muhammad Tariq through L.H. & others 2017 SCR 252 (D)
  99. Section 107 — powers of the appellate Courts — The right of appeal is a statutory right of a party. Under the provision of section 107, C.P.C., the powers vested in the Courts of original jurisdiction are also available with the appellate Courts. G. Rabani v. M. Fiaz & another 2015 SCR 317 (C)
  100. —Section 108—-Order XLIII, Rule 2, Order XLI—appeals against orders—-constitution of appeal— procedure for appeal against the orders and is prescribed u/o XLIII, Rule 2  which provides  that the rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders— according to the statutory provisions the rules of Order XLI are not applicable in toto rather they shall apply so far as may be— section 108, CPC provides  that the provisions relating to appeals from original decrees, so far as may be, shall apply to appeals from the appellate decrees and orders made under this Code. Muhammad Ajmal & others v. Azeem Akhtar & others 2017 SCR 1253 (B)
  101. Section 109, 110 and O. XLV C.P.C. read with section 42 Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — Appeal before Supreme Court — Filing of — Sections 109, 110 and O. XLV C.P.C. not applicable to the Supreme Court and also inconsistent with the provision of section 42 of Interim Constitution Act — Constitution override the aforementioned provisions of C.P.C. Muhammad Khan and another v. Muhammad Sharif & another 2001 SCR 49 (I)
  102. Ss. 109 & 110 O.XLV read with section 42 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — Two matters are clear, firstly the Federal Court was not mentioned in the Code, and secondly that Civil Procedure Code came into force in Azad Jammu and Kashmir “as in force in the West Punjab” and ” as far as practicable” the provisions relating to King-in-Council did not come into force in Azad Jammu and Kashmir — Supreme Court was constituted in Pakistan on 23rd March 1956, the date on which the Constitution of Pakistan 1956 came into effect — Still in Civil Procedure Code the provisions relating to King-in-Council continued to be in force till 24th January 1961 when “Central Laws (Adaptation)” Order 1961 (President’s Order No. 1 of 1961) came into force — It was then that all references in the Civil Procedure Code to “His Majesty-in-Council and King-in-Council” were retrospectively substituted by the words “Supreme Court” with effect from 23rd March 1956 —  Supreme Court in Azad Jammu and Kashmir was constituted in 1975 — There is no provision in resolution No. 279 that future amendments in Pakistan will automatically come in force in Azad Jammu and Kashmir — In fact such a provision could not have been legislated because future law cannot be adopted — As for as valuation is concerned order XLV of Civil Procedure Code, as applicable in West Punjab at the relevant time, visualised appeal before the King-in-Council if the value of the subject matter was Rupees ten thousand or upwards — This provision, in any case, was inconsistent with the provision of section 42 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act which provides appeal as of right if the value of the subject matter is Rupees fifty thousand — Thus it is clear that sections 109 and 110 as well as Order XLV never came into force in AJ&K — Therefore any objection based on these provisions has to be rejected. M. Khan and another v. Muhammad Sharif & another 2001 SCR 49 (H)
  103. S. 115 — Review — Revisional power under this section is available only if when as under is not appealable. M. A.Farooq v. Mansoor Ahmed Naqshbandi & others 1993 SCR 78 (A)
  104. S. 115 — If a subordinate Court while exercising its jurisdiction acts illegally or with material irregularity and no appeal lies against the relevant order, a revision would be competent — One of the conditions which bars the revision to the High Court is that no appeal is competent against the relevant order. If a remedy other than an appeal, suit, etc. is available that would not debar the Courts from exercising the revisional powers in a proper case under section 115 C.P.C. Ch. Muhammad Siddique v. Arshad Mehmood 1993 SCR 280 (B)
  105. S. 115 — Revision — Where there has been a patent illegality or it is found to be without jurisdiction, despite the provision of an order being appealable, the High Court has the power to correct an order passed by a subordinate Court in exercise of powers of super vested in it — These powers have been available to the High Court under section 35 of the Courts and Laws Code since 1949 — Which powers are now conferred on the High Court by the Interim Constitution Act under S.46. Abdul Rashid v. Gulzar 1995 SCR 307 (A)
  106. S. 115 — Revision — High court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a case where there has been patent illegality, or the trial Court acted without jurisdiction and where agrave injustice has been done — In the instant case the trial Court instead of resorting to the provisions contained in Order XXI had been making un-called for observations, not required by law. Abdul Rashid v. Gulzar 1995 SCR 307 (C)
  107. S. 115 — Words ‘no appeal lies’ are not confined to first appeal but include second appeal as well — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court is limited to those cases only where no appeal either in the first instance or eventually would lie to High Court — If no appeal has been filed before a Distt. Judge the High Court would be incompetent to exercise revisional jurisdiction, either on an application or suo motu. Gul M.Khan v. Custodian Evacuee Property 1999 SCR 449 (A)
  108. S. 115 — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court is limited to those cases only where no appeal either in the first instance or eventually would lie to High Court — If no appeal has been filed before the Distt. Judge in such a case, the High Court would be incompetent to exercise its revisional power either on an application or suo motu. M. Resham Khan v. M. Amir Khan 2000 SCR 589 (A)
  109. S. 115 — Revisional jurisdictional — Exercise of — S. 115, C.P.C., Confers revisional jurisdiction upon High Court — It applies to cases involving illegal assumption, non-existence or irregular exercise of jurisdiction — The jurisdiction is purely discretionary — Discretionary powers should be exercised where it is necessary for the ends of justice. M. Latif  Khan v. M. Hanif  2007 SCR 125 (A)
  110. S. 115 — Applies to the cases where the lower Court has illegally assumed jurisdiction, irregularly exercised or refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or committed an error of law — The power vested in High Court is purely discretionary one and can be exercised on the principles upon which such discretionary orders are passed — While exercising revisional jurisdiction if High Court comes to the conclusion that the lower Court has exercised such jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise or decline to assume the jurisdiction vested in it or exercised discretion in an illegal manner or has adopted such procedure, the result of which puts a party in an advantageous position as against the other then revisional powers must be exercised — If it is of opinion that no violation of above mentioned matters is on record then it shall decline to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Tariq Mehmood v. Contractor Ahmed Din 2009 SCR 294 (A)
  111. Section 115 — Revisional Court — powers to call for record — according to the statutory provision of section 115, the revisional Court is vested with the powers to call for record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate and in which no appeal  lies thereto — if subordinate Court appears; to has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,  the revisional Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Azad Govt. & 5 others v. Shabbir Hussain & 6 others 2016 SCR 278 (A)
  112. S. 115 read with S.46 of AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and S.35 of Courts and Laws Code Act, 1949 — Revision laches — High Court power of — Power to correct an illegality could be exercised by the High Court — Appellants slept over the matter for more than three years — Disentitles them from getting any relief. Mirzaman Abbasi v. AJK Govt. 1997 SCR 17 (A)
  113. S. 115(1) — The proviso to sub-section (1) was incorporated through Law Reforms Ordinance No. X of 1980 in Pakistan — This was adapted in Azad Kashmir vide Act No. IV of 2003 — Before incorporation of proviso (1) it was general practice that record of lower Court was summoned — Proviso (1) has been introduced to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of cases — If copies of documents and pleadings along with the order of lower Court are appended with the revision petition then it is not necessary to summon the record of the lower Court — So that revisional Court can decide the same without staying the proceedings in lower Court. Tariq Mehmood v. Contractor Ahmed Din and 4 others 2009 SCR 294 (B)
  114. S. 115(1), proviso II — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993, (B.K.),  S. 6. Noor Dad v. Muhammad Rafique 2012 SCR 311   
  115. Section. 115(2), Specific Relief Act, S. 9 — parameters of — power of the Court to convert the appeal into revision petition — u/s 115/ (2) CPC, the Court has ample powers to convert the appeal into revision petition subject to legal objections — Held: it is settled that parameters of S. 9, of Specific Relief Act, are limited to the extent that the Court cannot go beyond the conditions laid down in it.  While deciding the suit filed under said section, Court is not competent to decide the title and has to remain within the following four ingredients:-i)      Person suing must have been dispossessed; ii)     Such dispossession must be from immovable property; iii)    Dispossession should be without consent; andiv)    Dispossession should be otherwise than in due course of law. Under this provision the Court has only to decide the matter relating to possession of the immovable property. Abdul Karim v. Sain Muhammad & another 2014 SCR 859 (D)
  116. ۔۔۔دفعہ 115۔۔۔نگرانی۔۔۔ذیلی دفعہ)  3( کی رو سے جب ڈسٹرکٹ جج یا عدالت عالیہ  میں سے کسی بھی عدالت میں دائری نگرانی کے بعد اُُسی معاملہ میں ا ن عدالتوں میں سے کسی میں بھی  دوسریدرخواست نگرانی دائر نہیں کی جا سکتی۔۔۔ ذیلی دفعہ)  4( کی رو سے جب ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے کسی معاملہ میں ذیلی دفعہ)  2 ( کے تحت اختیارات استعمال کرتے ہوئے نگرانی میں فیصلہ صادر کیا ہو تو اُُس فیصلہ کے خلا ف عدالت عالیہ میں نگرانی دائر کرنے کی قدغن ہے۔) صفحہ Muhammad Zahid Razzaq v. Shamim Akhter & others 2019 SCR 435
  117. دفعات121 تا 131، باب X — دفعہ  123— عدالت العالیہ کی قوعد کمیٹی کا قیام — دیوانی مقدمات میں غیر ضروری طوالت — عوامی بے چینی کا سبب — قانون و نظام فراھمی انصاف پر سوالات — قواعد و ضوابط کی بدلتے حالات کے تقاضوں  سےعدم ہم آہنگی—قواعد و ضوابط دیوانی میں ترامیم کے لیے عدالت العالیہ کی نہایت اہم ذمہ داری— عدالت العالیہ کو دفعہ 126 مجموعہ ضابطہ دیوانی کی منشا کے مطابق قواعد کمیٹی کا قیام عمل میں لانے کے لیے ہدایات جاری کی گئیں. اسد وغیرہ  بنام زاہدہ بیگم وغیرہ(چ)2016 SCR 1522  
  118. S.141 — The spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in all proceedings of civil nature before all Courts — Application for restoration of suit dismissed for non-prosecution is filed in the Court of civil jurisdiction which was seized with the matter — When such is the case, the spirit of procedure provided by C.P.C. has to be applied — In such eventualities of O.IX, r.8 of C.P.C. is applicable by implication within the spirit of S.141, C.P.C. Abdul Aziz Chaudhry v. Gulzar Ahmed 2007 SCR 398 (B)
  119. S. 148 — Extension of time — If some material against the amendment order was incorporated in the amended plaint the trial Court could delete that material or ignore the same — Where period is fixed or granted by Court for doing of any act, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. Sadiq Hussain v. Nisar Ahmad & 2 others 2003 SCR 308 (A)
  120. Section 148 — powers exercised by the Court under section 148 — extension of time deposit of decretal amount — The powers available under section 148, C.P.C., can be exercised by the Court even without any application, suo-motu or on an oral prayer. Ghulam Rabani v. Muhammad Fiaz & another 2015 SCR 317 (A) NLR 1991 CLJ 730 & 2010 CLC 22 rel.
  121. Section 148 — contention — that the time has been extended for deposit of decreetal amount without any averment made in the pleadings or written request — Held: the powers available under section 148, C.P.C., can be exercised by the Court even without any application, suo-motu or on an oral prayer. G. Rabani v. M. Fiaz 2016 SCR 295 (A) NLR 1991 CLJ 730 & 2010 CLC 22 rel.
  122. —Section 148—extension of time for depositing decretal amount— discretion of Court— appellants stressed on the point that the appellate Court fully empowered to extend the time at any stage—Held: it is in the discretion of the appellate Court to enlarge the period fixed by the trial Court for doing any act, however, it is also well settled law that the discretion must be exercised in a judicious manner and the same cannot be exercised arbitrarily or fancifully by taking away the valuable rights already accrued to a party by lapse of time. Muhammad Rashid Khan & another                 v. Liaquat Ali & another 2019 SCR 182 (B)
  123. —Section 148—extension of time—decretal amount–Carelessness and negligence of a party— time fixed by the trial Court for depositing the decretal amount expired — appellants failed to make any written/verbal request for extension of the time —due to carelessness and negligence of the appellants, a valuable right had been accrued to the other party which could not be taken away without furnishing sufficient cause. Muhammad Rashid Khan & another               v. Liaquat Ali & another 2019 SCR 182 (B) —Section 148 read with section 155—order of deposit of costs—Enlargement/extension of time—Trial Court fixed date of hearing—on the fixed date application for depositing the costs filed—Held: On the said date the trial Court was well seized with the matter and did not become functus officio—Section 148 read with section 155 empowers the Court to enlarge the time fixed or granted by it—According to the new trend the Courts are in favour of adjudication of the matters on merits rather to throw the cases out on the technical grounds. Muhammad Sarwar vs Ufone & others 2018 SCR 518 (A)
  124. Extension of time by the appellate Court — after expiry of time fixed by trial Court — application for extension of time can even be entertained by the appellate Court after expiry of the time allowed by the trial Court. Ghulam Rabani v. M. Fiaz  2016 SCR 295 (D) 1995 SCMR 105 rel.
  125. S. 149 and Order VII rule 11 clauses (B) and (C) — These two provisions are not destructive of each other — S. 149 applies to a case in which whole of the Court fee is unpaid-It confers a discretionary power which is exercisable at any stage. If this section is read in isolation the argument that a Court is bound to give at least one opportunity to a defaulting party cannot be sustained — However clauses (B) and (C) do require that a plaint cannot be rejected unless at least one opportunity is given to the defaulting party by fixing a time for compliance of the order. By now it is a settled law that these two provisions i.e. section 149 and order VII rule 11 have to be read together and must be given effect to accordingly- These two provisions cannot be considered to be mutually destructive. Executive Engineer Munir v.  R. M. Nawaz Khan 1994 SCR 287 (A)
  126. Differentiation of — The difference is only apparent and is not real – Section 149 is a general provision which deals with all the categories of cases but clauses (B) and (C) only deal with two given situations. – Clause (B) deals with a situation where the relief claimed is under valued- while clause (C) caters to a situation where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon insufficient stamp paper- The plain interpretation is that in situation falling in clause (B) and (C) the requirement of giving one opportunity is mandatory and if it does not fall in any of the two categories the power would be discretionary. Executive Engineer Munir  v. Raja M. Nawaz Khan 1994 SCR 287 (B)
  127. S.149 — Under section 149 the discretion may be exercised in light of the principles connected therewith at any stage, limitation not being factor-Under this section when payment is made in consequence of the permission granted by the Court the document has the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance- In this section there is no reference to extension of time for payment of Court-fee and there is mention of permission to pay the fee. Executive Engineer Munir v. Raja Muhammad Nawaz Khan 1994 SCR 287 (E)
  128. In a case falling under section 149 unless the plaintiff or appellant is guilty of contumacy or positive malafide, he should be allowed to pay the Court fee. Executive Engineer Munir v. Raja Muhammad Nawaz Khan 1994 SCR 287 (F)
  129. S. 149 C.P.C. — Clearly contains that where whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by law for the time being in force relating to Court has not been paid the Court may in its discretion at any stage allow the party to pay the whole or any part of such Court fee — On payment of Court fee the document shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance — Where any Court fee is provided regarding any document or suit, then the institution of suit will not be legal if such Court fee is not paid — Section 149 is exception to this rule — It is the duty of the Court to ascertain the deficiency of Court fee and give time to the plaintiff to make up the deficiency — If plaintiff complies with the order of Court then the defect shall be deemed to have been removed from the date of institution. Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Said Husssain Khan 2006 SCR 247 (A)
  130. Section 151 — does not confer any new power upon a Court but only saves its inherent powers already vested. The inherent powers of the civil Courts to do right and undo the wrong one preserved under this section. Where a law confers a jurisdiction it impliedly grants powers of doing all such acts or employing such means as are necessary in its execution. The Court has inherent powers to take all steps to execute its own mandate and orders. The powers under this section are to be exercised for the ends of justice or for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court and it is intended to prevent the Court from being rendered powerless on account of omission of having a provision in the Code and to make necessary orders. Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Taj and others 1994 SCR 257 (A) 1973 SCMR 103, PLD 1975 SC 331 referred and relied
  131. S. 151 — Inherent powers — Procedure laid down by the relevant law, cannot be departed from by resorting to inherent powers. M. Younas and 7 others v. Auqaf Department 2000 SCR 220 (A)
  132. —Section 151—inherent powers—scope of— District Judge dismissed the revision petition against the order of closing of evidence—Order attained finality—the order to the extent of recording the evidence amounts to review his earlier order— u/s 151, CPC, no such powers vested in the District Judge while deciding appeal to review his earlier order passed in revision— the inherent powers u/s 151, CPC, should be exercised by the Court sparingly and in unavoidable circumstances.  Muneeza Begum v. Maqsood Bi & others  2022 SCR 907 (B)
  133. S. 151 — To do complete justice it is the inherent powers of the court under section 151 read with section 141, C.P.C. to apply the spirit of the Code to all the proceedings of civil nature to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Abdul Aziz Chaudhry v. Gulzar Ahmed 2007 SCR 398 (C)
  134. section 151 — inherent powers — exercise of by first appellant Court — such powers should be exceptionally and sparingly be exercised. Maneeza Begum v. Maqsood Bi & 16 others 2016 SCR 1567 (C) 1998 SCR 137 rel.
  135. — Section 151—Order XX, Rule 43—inherent powers of the Court—writ proceedings—under Order XX, Rule 43, when a judgment is signed by a Judge, it cannot be recalled or altered but proposition when the High Court reached the conclusion that a judgment was procured by practicing fraud upon the Court, when the Court has powers to recall the said judgment or not?— section 151, confers inherent powers in the Court to pass an appropriate order to meet the ends of justice—the scope and extent of inherent powers is very wide—the powers can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and when a Court comes to the conclusion that prima facie fraud has been committed with the Court by a party, then held: the Court is obliged to undo the fraud and remove injustice forthwith—Further held: when an order/judgment is procured by practicing fraud upon the Court, the Court under inherent powers vested in it is empowered to recall the said judgment. Mst. Nighat Srwar v. Mst. Shabana Kausar & others 2017 SCR 158 (B,D&G)  AIR 1923 Patna 483, AIR 1923 Patna 48, PLD 1954 Lah. 745, PLD 1958 Dacca 295, PLD 1973 Lah. 637, PLD 1975 SC 331 and AIR 1999 SC 2089 rel.
  136. Section 151 — Order XLI, Rule 23 — proposition raised that remand order not passed under Order XLI, Rule 23 rather it was passed u/s 151 CPC and against such order appeal not competent — proposition not resolved in its legal context as if the appeal was not competent the same might have been treated as revision petition. Maneeza Begum v. Maqsood Bi 2016 SCR 1567 (B) 1995 CLC 1578 & Public at large vs. Mazhar H.& others (Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2011, decided on 19.3.2013) rel.
  137. S. 152 C.P.C. — Judgments, decrees or orders — Clerical or arithmetical mistakes — Correction of — Mistakes which are result of accidental slips or omissions may be corrected by the Court at any time on the application of any of the parties or on its own motion. Kareem Dad v. Fazal Karim & 2 others 2004 SCR 289 (A)
  138. S. 152 — Order/judgment can be altered apart from the powers of review by way of powers vested in the Court — The order of the Tribunal can only be amended or altered by way of review. Held: No other method is provided in the service laws for the purpose — Held further: The order passed by Service Tribunal is clearly against the statutory backing —- Not covered by any of the provisions of law and is liable to be set aside. Talat Yasmeen v. Samina Rashid 2009 SCR 333 (I)
  139. S. 152 and 12(2) — Limitation for filing application for correction of judgment or decree — Powers of High Court — Question whether the powers to correct a decree vest in a Court of original jurisdiction or High Court needs no deep deliberation. Similar is the position in respect of period of limitation for a stranger to file an application. It is abudantly clear that the appellant brought this matter before the High Court when section 12(2) CPC, had already been adopted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir — Similarly section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code does not restrict the powers of the Court to be exercised within a specified or limited period. Held: The rendering in the section clearly authorizes the Court to exercise the powers Suo motu or on the application of any of the party. The objections are therefore devoid of any force. Held: The appellant competently filed an application for correction of the decree and the High Court was bound to correct and set-aside the judgment and decree passed on the basis of compromise between the private parties in respect of crown land as it had no jurisdiction to pass a decree of ownership of crown land in favour of a party. The High Court couldn’t reject the application on mere pretext that it was filed late in the day as well. M. Shafi v. Bashir Ahmed & 6 others 2010 SCR 280 (B) PLD 1992 SC (AJK) 1 rel.
  140. Sections 152 and 153 — amendment of judgments, decrees or orders — powers of Court to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit — The Court is vested with the powers to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment, decree or order arising therein from any accident slip or omission at any time even on its own motion or application of the parties. Such amendment should be made for the purpose of determining the real issue raised by or depending on such proceedings. Urfan Qureshi v. Ch. Shaukat Aziz 2014 SCR 794 (A)
  141. Sections 152 and 153 — It is now well settled principle of law that under these statutory provisions, the amendment of misdescription of property or parties can be made. Urfan Qureshi v. Ch. Shaukat Aziz 2014 SCR 794 (B)
  142. Sections 152 and 153 — Correction of survey number in the decree based on written deed of agreement to the demarcation and boundaries of the suit property are clearly mentioned — parties in oral and documentary evidence have not disputed the boundaries of suit property — Held: No doubt the Court is empowered to correct such discrepancy but for allowing such ame8ndment, the order should be based upon appreciation of some material and not in vacuum. Further held: such amendment should be made for the purpose of determining the real question or such issue, the Court should first has to be satisfied to allow correction on the basis of appraisal of the material. Urfan Qureshi v. Ch. Shaukat Aziz 2014 SCR 794 (C)
  143. Sections 152 & 153 — amendments in the judgments, decrees or orders — powers of Court to amend any defect in the proceedings in a suit — where any claim is founded on the deed and an incorrect specification of property is detected, correction of the same to bring it in conformity with the deed should be allowed. Urfan Qureshi v. Ch. Shaukat Aziz 2014 SCR 794 (E) 1991 SCMR 245 rel.
  144. O.I, rule.1 and sub rule.(5) — writ petition against the order passed in revision — adding and striking out of parties — the District judge and Senior Civil Judge — proceedings to be initiated only upon service of summons — application for arraying as party filed after more than eight months — dismissal of writ on ground of non-arraying necessary parties — The Supreme Court not interfered — Although under Order I Rule 10(1) CPC, the parties can be added or deleted but sub Rule (5) is also there which speaks that the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only the service of the summons — the consequences of this statutory provision clearly speaks that if such parties are allowed to be arrayed at this stage thereafter summons have to be served upon them which will consume further time, whereas, more than a year’s period has already elapsed. In this context, the impugned judgment of the High Court is quite consistent with the statutory provision as well as enunciated principle of law. There is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment. Noor Din v. Abdul Hameed 2016 SCR 928 (B)
  145. O.1 R.3 — Contention of appellant that he did not authorise his attorney or advocate to enter into a compromise for settlement of dispute on oath and to make statement before the High Court, not accepted — Held: That power of attorney executed in favour of Maqsood Ahmad was only to prosecute the cases in Revenue Courts — The appeal before High Court was incompetent as the same had been filed by a person who was not a recognized agent. Khadam Hussain v. Muhammad Azam Sati 2006 SCR 333 (A)
  146. Provisions of the Code do not apply to the proceedings before the Supreme Court — Order 1 rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules specifically and explicitly excludes the application of the code. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (M)
  147. O. 1 R. 7 — Ex-parte proceedings — When discretion exercised by the Courts below in favour of the defendants then this Court should not normally interfered. Muhammad Hussain v. Dana Begum and 7 others 2003 SCR 418 (D)
  148. O. R. 7 — While considering the application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings the Court has to take lenient view — All the rules laid down in C.P.C. were intendel for advancing justice and not retarding it purely on technicalities.M.Hussain v.Dana Begum and others 2003 SCR 418 (C)
  149. O. 1, rule 8 — This rule is not mandatory is nature. It is only enabling provision. The view of this Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan is that the provisions of rule 8 of Order 1 are only enabling and permissive and not mandatory in nature. Residents of Mirpur v. Mayor Municipal Corporation Mirpur 1995 SCR 332 (B) PLJ 1983 SC 262 and 1979 CLC 788 relied.
  150. O. 1, R.8 — Injunction — Violation of Order 1 Rule 8 — Effect of — It is for the trial Court to decide the matter. Jamia Masjid Sharif Rara v. Khalil–ur–Rehman 1998 SCR 12 (A)
  151. — order I. rule 8 — representative suit/writ — permission of the Court — mandatory — numerous persons with the same interest in a suit — one or more persons can with the permission of the Court sue or be sued, or defend the suit on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons sharing that common interest — this rule is also applicable to writ petitions — representation of numerous persons with the same interest in a suit requires permission of the Court — principal consideration for permission of Court is, whether there is sufficient community of interest between numerous persons to justify the institution of representative suit — permission is to be applied by the person desirous of suing on behalf of numerous persons or of suing numerous persons in a representative capacity or by a defendant wanting to defend on behalf of numerous persons in a representative capacity — Imtiaz Hussain Shah & 15 others versus Secretary Public Works & others 2023 SCR 625 (B) 2005 CLC 144, 2005, 2005 YLR 1541/1742, 2004 MLD 1671 rel.
  152. O. 1 R 9 & 10. Necessary party — When a party not contesting the suit and proceeded ex-parte — Held: He was not a necessary party. Muhammad Sabeel v. Muhammad Riaz 1992 SCR 386 (A)
  153. O. I, R 10-Application in writ-when a new party is added writ is to be amended and objections have to be filed by the new respondent-objection not raised — Effect bonafide mistake — explanation for non compliance of Court order not unfounded when other party also not objected it is case of negligence and not of culpable negligence appeal accepted. Ali Asghar v. Chairman Municipal Committee 1994 SCR 56 (A)
  154. O. 1 Rule 9 and 10 — Rule 9 lays down that a suit cannot be defeated by reason of misjoinder and the Court may deal with parties actually before it. Rule 10 inter alia provides that the name of any party improperly joined be struck of. Residents of Mirpur v. Mayor Municipal Corporation Mirpur 1995 SCR 332 (D) PLD 1969 Kar. 692 relied.
  155. O. 1, Rule 10 — It is provided in rule 10 that a suit has been instituted in the name of a wrong person as a plaintiff through a bona fide mistake and it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute the Court may order the substitution or addition of the plaintiffs — This rule also empowers the Court at any stage of proceedings, even without application, to order that the name of any party improperly joined be struck out. Residents of Mirpur v. Mayor Municipal Corporation Mirpur 1995 SCR 332 (E)
  156. O. 1 R.10 — Suit against dead person — Legal representative of — Rule 4 Order 22 of C.P.C. deals with the bringing legal representatives of a deceased-defendant on the record who dies during the pendency of the suit; in the instant case it is admitted of both the opposite parties that said defendants had died before the institution of the suit — Therefore, the case would be governed by rule 10 of Order 1 and not by rule 4 Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code. Khan Muhammad Khan and 19 others v. Saif Ali & 22 others 1999 SCR 379 (A)
  157. O. 1 rule 10 — In absence of any prejudice being caused to any of the parties, the addition of legal representatives of the deceased defendant is not contrary to law — Its shall be deemed as if an improper party was joined in the case and the party who ought to have been joined as defendant is not joined. Tazeem Bibi & another v. Muhammad Khalid & 10 others 2005 SCR 347 (B)
  158. O. 1, R. 10 — Failure to implead necessary party — If necessary party was not impleaded in the line of respondents, no order could be passed against said party. Muzaffar Hussain Khan & 9 others v. Board of Revenue through Member Muzaffarabad and 26 others 2012 SCR 415 (A)
  159. O. 1, R. 10 — See AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S.42, 44. Abdul Rasheed and 4 others V.  Member Board of Revenue, AJK, Muzaffarabad and 33 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 222
  160. —Order, 1 Rule, 10—rectification of defect—Held: where a suit is filed in the name of a wrong person or a dead person, the defect can be rectified by restoring to Order,1 Rule, 10 CPC and dismissal  of the suit for technical reasons has not been approved by the superior Courts. Muhammad Ilyas & others v. Ikramullah Khan & others 2017 SCR 1079 (C) AIR 1938 Nagpur 458 and PLJ 2000 SC (AJK) 216 rel.
  161. O. 1. Rule 10(2) — The Court may at any stage of proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party and on such term as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff and defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Muhammad Sabir and 7 others v. Sian Maqbool Hussain and 3 others 2000 SCR 174 (C)
  162. O. 1, R. 10(2) — Clearly authorities the Court to itself add a party whose presence may be necessary in order to adjudicate upon and settle questions involved in the matter — It is elementary requirement that in a writ petition the Govt. or the person performing functions in connection with the affairs of State whose order is challenged should be made a party. Vice Chancellor and 3 others v. Muhammad Shahzad Khalid 2000 SCR 575 (B)
  163. O. 1 R. 10 (2) The Court is competent to strike out or add the parties at any stage of the case during the pendency of proceedings. Public Health Engineering Division & another v. Aurangzeb Khan 2008 SCR 590 (B)  PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lah.659 rel.
  164. Order 2 rule 2 — No party can be allowed to bifurcate his reliefs arising out of the same cause of action and to claim them in installments through civil litigation which includes the writ petitions. Board of Trustee & another v. Muhammad Azam Durrani 2004 SCR 401 (A)
  165. O. II rule 2 — No party is allowed to split up its claim and bring suits on the basis of same cause of action in installments — Held: This provision of law is not attracted. Javed Iqbal and 5 others  v. Social Welfare Deptt. and 5 others 2004 SCR 435 (D)
  166. O. II, R. 2 — Bar to subsequent suit — Rule — The rule enjoins that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the same cause of action and bars, except with the leave of the Court, any subsequent suit in respect of very portion of his claim which the plaintiff omits or intentionally relinquishes in the first suit — In order to completely attract the bar in said provision to the subsequent suit, there conditions must be fulfilled; firstly, that the previous and the present suit must have arises out of the same cause of action? Secondly both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives; and thirdly, that the previous suit must have been decided on merits — The said rule is based on the principle that a defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause — It is penal in nature and precludes the plaintiff to sue for the portion of the claim or for the remedy so omitted. Muhammad Najeeb v. Muhammad javed and 4 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 172 (C)
  167.  Order II, Rule, 2 — composition of suit — Every suit shall include the whole of the claim, to which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action — if he fails to include any portion of his claim, he shall be precluded to bring such claim in subsequent suit — if plaintiff omits to pray one of the several reliefs, which is arising from the same cause of action, he shall be barred to pray for such omitted relief in subsequent suit. Chief Engineer & SDF&KF others v. M/S Recent Construction Company & others 2015 SCR 1201 (B)
  168. O. II, R. 2, S. 11 — Specific Relief Act, 1877, S. 42 — Suit for declaration/possession for the second time — Res judicata — Parties to the earlier suit and subsequent suit were the same and the issues were also the same — Contention of plaintiff that subsequent suit was based on fresh cause of action which accrued when a new mutation was sanctioned, had no substance — Entry in Revenue Record does not create any right or on the basis of that no new cause of action arisen — No new cause of action was available to respondents/plaintiffs for filing fresh suit on same grounds which can taken in earlier suit — Further held, ground of possession of disputed house was available at time of filing of first suit but plaintiff-respondent intentionally omitted the same — A plea which could not be taken in the first suit could not be taken in the subsequent suit — High Court was not justified to hold that suit of respondents was not hit by principle of res judicata — Impugned judgment/decree of High Court was set aside and one passed by Additional District Judge was restored — Civil appeal allowed. SUBSEQUENT SUIT — (Res judicata) On same cause of action, subsequent suit was not maintainable between same parties. Appeal was allowed by Supreme Court. M. Najeeb v. M. Javed and 4 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 172 (F)
  169. —Order, II rule 7—misjoinder of causes of action is to be determined on the basis of the allegations in the plaint and not otherwise. Muhammad Zaman Tabassum v. Mehmood Ahmed Butt 2022 SCR 416 (A)
  170. —Order, II rule 7—misjoinder—if objection to misjoinder is not taken at the earliest time, it shall be deemed to have been waived— the principle is that having gone to trial on merits and not having objected to multifariousness the defendant cannot be allowed to plead as such after failing on merits. Muhammad Zaman Tabassum v. Mehmood Ahmed Butt 2022 SCR 416 (B) 1998 CLC 1425 & 2002 CLC 566 rel
  171.  —Order, II rule 7—misjoinder— words used in the provision earliest possible opportunity means ‘the intervening period starting from filing of suit till framing of issues—after framing of issues, the opportunity cannot be availed. Muhammad Zaman Tabassum             v. Mehmood Ahmed Butt 2022 SCR 416 (C) AIR 1936 Nagpur 314 ref  —Order, II rule 7—misjoinders—objection— if the defendant does not raise the objection at the earliest possible opportunity, then by fiction of law would be deemed to have waived his right to misjoinder—in absence of an objection, the Court would adjudicate all issues arising out of all the causes of action. Muhammad Zaman Tabassum v. Mehmood Ahmed Butt 2022 SCR 416 (D)
  172. O. III — Deals with recognized agents and pleaders and provides for powers of attorney in the Court or a person or recognized agent who includes person or person holding a power of attorney authorizing to make and do such powers, applications and acts on behalf of the constituting authority. Muhammad Basharat v. Mrs. Naseem Begum & 3 others 2009 SCR 185 (C)
  173. Order III — recognized agents & pleaders — empowers the recognized agents to appear and act on behalf of authority — Para (A) of Rule 2 provides that the persons, who are holder of power of attorney  authorizing them to act on behalf of a party and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties and para (B) deals with the persons carrying on trade and business for and on behalf of a party and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts. WAPDA v. M. Iqbal 2015 SCR  35 (M)
  174. O. III rule 1: A party or an authorised agent having written authority to act- can appear before the Court. Khan Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Aziz 1992 SCR 54 (A)
  175. O. III rule 1: Pleader-Wakalatnama- Authority to act on behalf of the party. Authority must be in writing. Khan Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Aziz 1992 SCR 54 (B)
  176. O. III rule1: Power of attorney- The power to withdraw the appeal should be in explicit words no such power can vest by implication. Khan Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Aziz 1992 SCR 54 (C)
  177. O. III rule1: Power of attorney-Compromise and appeal by counsel are two different situations which have nothing common between them-Power to compromise-Does not include the power to withdraw an appeal. Khan Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Aziz 1992 SCR 54 (D&E)
  178. O. III rule1: Power of attorney- Scope and connotation are to be understood in view of contents of the same in each Particular case-The intention of the person executing the power of attorney is to be seen while interpreting the document. Bashir Ullah v. M. Qasim 1992 SCR 69 (A)
  179. O. III, R. 2 — Power of attorney — Phraseology used is not so wide as to include the power to challenge the allotment of open space — High Court rightly rejected the writ. Qamar Zaman v. Municipal Corporation Mirpur and 7 others 2000 SCR 364 (A)
  180. O, III, Rule, 2—special power of attorney—construction of—pre-emption suit— authority for institution of the suit/application in any Court on behalf of principal is given in respect of property—The words “my property” — confer the authority specifically on the attorney-holder for filing the suits/applications in respect of the property of principal —The suit of pre-emption which arises only on the sale of the property of the defendants does not cover the phrase “my property” and no specific authority has been given in the power of attorney for filing the same. Sabir Hussain v. Sakina Bibi 2019 SCR 343 (A)  PLD 1978 SC (AJK) 143 & PLD 1980 SC (AJK) 60 rel
  181. O. III, R.11 — Deals with recognized agents and pleaders and provides for appearance of a party in the Court in person or through recognized agent or by a pleader — R. 11 clearly postulates that recognized agent includes person or persons holding a power of attorney authorizing to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such authorities. Muhammad Basharat v. Mrs. Naseem Begum and 3 others 2008 SCR 478 (D)
  182. O. III,R.4 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution  Act (VIII of 1974), S.42 — Appeal — Validity of institution of appeal — Appellant being a limited company, its Board of Directors had authorized General Manager to engage counsel for the purpose of filing appeal — Document authorizing General Manager to file appeal though purported to have been signed by the Chairman of the Company yet his name was not legible nor the document was attested copy of the original and same was without any date — Contents of such document had not been supported by an affidavit — Document in question was not proved and was inadmissible in evidence — Even otherwise such document empowered General Manager to engage a counsel for filing appeal but the “Wakalatnama” filed with appeal had been signed by the Administrative Manager which fact invalidated the institution of appeal. Novelty Enterprises Ltd. v. Deputy Collector 2001 SCR 191 (A) Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore PLD 1971 SC 550 and Abubakar Saley Mayet v. Abbot Laboratories. 1987 CLC 367 rel.
  183. Order V, Rule 5 and Order VIII, Rule 1 — summons — written statement — when a suit is filed, the Court shall order the defendant to appear in person or by pleader duly instructed to answer all the material questions — under Rule 5, while issuing the summons, the Court shall determine, whether; the summons is for settlement of issues or for final disposal of the suit — under Order VIII, Rule 1, the defendants shall file the written statement if so ordered by the Court — Held: when the amended plaint is filed, it is the duty of the Court to provide an opportunity for filing written statement — if the defendant states that he will rely upon the written statement already filed, then it shall be brought on the record as such. Asadullah Khan & 8 others v. Cap. (R) Raja Muhammad Ilyas Khan & 10 others 2016 SCR 750 (A)
  184. Order V, Rule 17 to 20 — service upon defendant — Under Rule 17 when the serving officer cannot find the defendant and there is no one to accept service of summons on his behalf, he shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door of the house where the defendant ordinarily resides and return a report that he has so affixed the copy with the names and addresses of the witnesses — under rule 19 when the summons is returned under rule 17 the Court shall, if the report under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of serving officer and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath — when the Court is satisfied that there is a reason to believe that defendant is avoiding the service or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, then Court shall order for substituted service in the manner provided in rule 20 — the provisions of rules 17 to 20 of Order V have to be complied with in all circumstances — under Rule 19 it is enjoined upon the Court to record the statement of process server, who returned the summons without service before passing the order for substituted service. Tassadaq Hussain Shah vs Mehr Din & 20 others 2015 SCR 134 (A)
  185. Order V — Rr. 17 to 20 — Service of summons upon defendants — Procedure — Under rule 17 when the serving officer cannot find the defendant and there is no one to accept service of summons — copy of the summons on the outer door of the house — Under rule 19 when the summons is returned under rule 17, serving officer shall be examined — When the Court is satisfied that there is a reason to believe that the defendant is avoiding the service or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, then the Court shall order for substituted service in the manner provided in rule 20 — Held: The provisions of rules 17 to 20 have to be complied with in all circumstances — Further held: It is enjoined upon the Court under Rule 19 to record the statement of the process server, who returned the summons without service before passing the order for substituted service. Tassadaq Hussain v. Mehar Din & others 2015 SCR 638 (A)  Shaukat Ali Shah v/s Mst. Kausar Fatima & others (Civil  Appeal  No. 105/ 2013,  decided  on  25. 6.2014), 2005 SCMR 1877 and 1985 SCMR 1228  ref.
  186. O. 6 R. 1 — Plaint — Amendment of — Amendment can only be allowed if it is necessary for determining the real question in controversy or it is otherwise necessary in the ends of justice. Hashmatullah v.Muhammad Shafi Butt and 3 others 1998 SCR 73 (A)
  187. O. VI, R. I — Pleadings — Question of fact, which had not been raised in the pleadings, could not be looked into by the courts, because in civil cases, the courts were bound to decide the cases in the light of the assertion of the parties as brought on record in their pleadings. Sub Retd. Muhammad Aziz Khan v. Muhammad Hanfi and others 2012 SCR 115 (K)
  188. O. VI, R. 1 (A) — Notwithstanding that it is discretionary for the Court to proceed ex parte or not when the defendant is absent as the word “may” is used — In the instant case the Clerk of Advocate of defendants/respondents was present in the Court in view of consistent practice followed by Courts, it did not deem advisable to proceed ex parte. Kala Khan v. M. Matloob 2008 SCR 288 (B)
  189. O. VI, R. 2, O. VII, Rr. 1, 7 — See AJ&K Public Service Commission Act, 1986, S. 4. Brig. (Retd.) Muhammad Saeed Akhtar v. AJK Govt. 2013 SCR 365 (B)
  190. O. VI, R. 7 — No party can make departure from its pleadings without amendment of same — Held: that a point not pleaded, evidence on such point cannot be considered. Abdul Khaliq v. Abdullah Khan and 4 others 1999 SCR 174 (E)
  191.  — order VI, Rule 7 — no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with previous pleadings of the parties. Habib-ur-Rehman v. Ch. Shoukat Aziz & others 2023 SCR 229 (B)
  192. —Order VI, rule 2 and Order VII, rule 1 and 7, CPC— pleadings—material facts—relief claimed. See caption (b) Pleadings. Nabeel Akram v. MDA Mirpur & others 2022 SCR 1630 (C)
  193. —Order VI, rule 14, CPC—signing of pleadings—was inserted and required through amending Ordinance, XII, 1972— effect of non-signing—Held: Rule 14 of Order VI, CPC, was amended by virtue of amendment introduced by Ordinance XII of 1972, whereby pleadings were required to be verified on oath or solemn affirmation. The non-signing or non-verification of the plaint/writ petition by a duly authorized person is simply an irregularity, it would not render the writ petition absolutely void or a nullity and the same would not deserve dismissal only due to irregularity of writ petition being not properly signed or verified. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (J)
  194. O. VI R. 17 — Only lays down that if permission for amendment is granted the manner and terms on which it would be allowed should be just. M. Iqbal v. Mirza Begum 1992 SCR 190 (A)
  195. O. VI R. 17 — Amendment — Limitation — Amendment can be allowed if two conditions are fulfilled: (I) amendment should not change nature of the suit; (ii) new cause of action is not set up. Muhammad Iqbal  v. Mirza Begum 1992 SCR 190 (B)
  196. O.  6 R. 17 — Read with S. 3 Limitation Act- R. 17 does not visualise that there will be limitation for amendment — Limitation Act does not fix any time for moving an application for amendment. Muhammad Iqbal v. Mirza Begum 1992 SCR 190 (C)
  197. O. VI R. 17 — Superior Courts have laid down different guidelines and principles on the question of amendment. Muhammad Iqbal v. Mirza Begum 1992 SCR 190 (D)
  198. O. VI  R. 17 — Application for amendment-Where omission is not intentional addition of Shamlat land can be allowed even after limitation-Application cannot be rejected on ground of limitation. Muhammad Iqbal  v. Mirza Begum 1992 SCR 190 (F&I)
  199. O. VI  R. 17 —  Negligence or carelessness is not a ground on which prayer for amendment can be refused. Muhammad Iqbal  v. Mirza Begum 1992 SCR 190 (G)
  200. O. VI  R. 17 — Court is not bound to accept a mala fide amendment application. Muhammad Iqbal v. Mirza Begum 1992 SCR 190 (H)
  201. O. VI  r. 17 Amendment — Negligence of a counsel cannot be condoned unless the same has occurred due to bonafide mistake — Amendment not allowed. Feroze Khan Sadiq v. Asghar Khan 1992 SCR 363 (A)
  202. O. VI R. 17 — Amendment of- Production of documentary evidence in garb of amendment after 8 or 9 years of the institution of the suit — Amendment not allowed. Feroze Khan Sadiq v. Asghar Khan 1992 SCR 363 (B)
  203. O. 6 R. 17 — Amendment — If the cause of action of the suit remains unchanged then it cannot be said that the complexion of suit would become different — Cause of action. Muhammad Akram and 2 others v. Muhammad Ashraf & 5 others 1997 SCR 315 (A)
  204. O. 6 R.17 — Amendment of suit — Mere different relief on the basis of same cause of action would not change the character of suit — Amendment allowed. Muhammad Akram and 2 others v. Muhammad Ashraf & 5 others 1997 SCR 315 (B)
  205. O. VI R.17 — After allowing the amendment the amended plaint could be filed within 14 days as determined by O.VI R.18 — The provisions of law also provide for extension of time by the Court. Muhammad Latif v. Muhammad Azeem and 3 others 2004 SCR 132 (A)
  206. Order VI rule 17 — Amendment of pleadings — Principles applicable to amendment of plaint are equally applicable to amendment in the written statement — However principles of amendment of written statement are different from that followed in allowing amendment in plaint — A plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his plaint so as to alter materially or substitute a cause of action or nature of claim — In deference or written statement, adding new ground of defence or substituting or altering defence would not arise the same problem — Therefore, Courts are liberal in allowing amendment in written statement than that of plaint, but at the same time the Courts have to consider whether the application for amendment of written statement is genuine one and amendment is necessary for just decision of the case — Where a Court finds that the application for amendment has been moved only for prolonging the case, then of course, such kind of amendment shall not be allowed or where by lapse of time a right has accrued to other party then such time-barred claim could not be allowed to be raised through an application for amendment — An amendment would not be allowed where it is proposed with the object of making out a new and inconsistent defence or where the amendment totally changes the character of defence. Ghulam Asghar v. Muhammad Aziz & 2 others 2008 SCR 78 (A)
  207. O. VI rule 17 — The amendment sought by a party should be clear, lucid and it should not be vague — In the case trial has almost been completed and even otherwise allowing of amendment shall not serve any purpose — It would amount to sheer wastage of time. Ghulam Asghar v. Muhammad Aziz & 2 others 2008 SCR 78 (C)
  208. O.VI rule 17 — Amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings — However, an amendment, whereby fundamental character of suit is altered or a right accrued by lapse of time is taken away is not allowed by the Courts — Proposed amendment seeks addition in relief clause of plaint which is consequential and ancillary to the relief originally sought — In case the Court comes to the conclusion that sale-deed assailed before Court is inoperative against the rights of contender, the consequential relief to which the contender is entitled sought to flow, which was not claimed by the respondent while filing the suit — Conversion of declaratory suit to suit for possession would not change the nature of suit in substance — Mere different relief on the basis of same cause of action would not change the character of suit. Mst. Bashira Begum v. Walayat Khan & 6 others 2008 SCR 118 (A) PLJ 2000 SC (AJK) 237&1997 SCR 315 rel.
  209. Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of pleadings — Addition of parties by way of amendment is different — Under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, an amendment in plaint and written statement can be allowed at any stage of proceedings even in this Court, but the question of adding a party by way of amendment is treated at a different pedestal. M. Pervaiz v. M. Munshi 2010 SCR 415 (A)
  210. O. VI, R. 17 — Amendment in pleadings — Pre-requisite — Under said section an amendment in the pleadings has to be allowed if it is necessary for the just decision of case, the completion of suit is not charged and it is necessary for the disposal of real controversy between the parties. [In the guise of amendment application, plaintiff/appellant wanted to nullify judgment of apex Court in respect of allotment which was rightly dismissed. Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court]. Perveen Akhter v. Administrator, Municipal Corporation Mirpur 2013 SCR  139 (B)
  211. O. VI, R. 17 — Amendment — Belated stage — Blank permission cannot be granted to a person to file an application for amendment whenever he desired so — The application for amendment is also subject to law — Ghulam Qadir and others v. Satar Din and others 2013 SCR 1218 (A)
  212. O. VI, R. 17 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Ghulam Qadir and 3 others v. Satar Din and 28 others 2013 SCR  1218 (B)
  213. Order VI, Rule 17 — Held: A party is at liberty to add relief by way of amendment at the later stage which was not available to him at the time of filing of the suit. Chief Engineer & SDF&KF others v. M/S Recent Construction Company & others 2015 SCR 1201 (C)
  214.  Order VI, Rule 17 — amendment of pleadings — amendment should liberally be granted, provided; (A) it does not alter the complexion of the suit — (B) the proposed amendment is necessary for just decision and resolving real controversy between the parties — (C) the amendment application has not been filed with mala-fide intention and; (D)  by allowing the application the case will not un-necessarily be prolonged. Chief Engineer & SDF&KF others v. M/S Recent Construction Company & others 2015 SCR 1201 (A)   
  215. Order VI, Rule 17 — amendment of pleadings — Rule 17 of Order VI, CPC empowers the Court that it may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, the amendment, whereby the fundamental character of the suit is altered or right accrued to a party by lapse of time is taken away, is not allowed by the Courts. While allowing the application for amendment, the Court has to take into consideration that by the proposed amendment a new case is not built up or the complexion of the suit is not changed and the proposed amendment is necessary for just decision of the controversy involved in the case. Abdul Rashid & another v. Munir Akhtar 2016 SCR 128 (A)
  216. Order VI, Rule 17 — pleadings — amendment of — a party may be allowed to amend the pleadings if the proposed amendment is just and necessary for correct decision of the case, the application has not been filed with mala fide intention, the complexion of the suit is not changed and no new case is introduced and the accrued rights of the other party are not defeated — Held: mere by seeking a different relief, it cannot be said that the complexion of the suit would be changed. Dr. Bushra Shams v. Azad Govt, & 4 others 2016 SCR 1271 (A)1997 SCR 315 ref.
  217. —Order VI, Rule 17—Amendment of Pleadings—such amendment—necessary to resolve real controversy—may be allowed at any time—the bare reading of the statutory provision shows that such amendment which may be necessary to resolve the real controversy involved in the matter can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. Sajid Hussain  v. Maroof Hussain & others 2017 SCR 965 (A)
  218. —Order VI, rule 17— Pleadings can be amended by a party at any stage of proceedings if no new case is being introduced— amendment appears to be necessary for the just decision of case—no mala-fide intention or prolonging the case— amendment can be allowed at appellate stage even in this Court. Usman Ali v. Naseer Ahmed & others 2017 SCR 102 (A) 2016 SCR 128 ref.
  219. — amendment allowed in another suit between the parties— rule of propriety demands that amendment should have been allowed in the instant case. Usman Ali v. Naseer Ahmed & others 2017 SCR 102 (B)
  220. O. VI, R. 17, O. 1, R. 10 — Specific Relief Act, 1877, S. 54 — Suit for perpetual injunction — Plaintiff/appellant moved an application for impleading MDA functionaries as party in line of defendants and sought permission for amendment to challenge said orders passed by MDA and its functionaries — Courts below dismissed such application — New case — Validity — In instant case when allotment in favour of said newly added defendant was challenged and it was kept intact by Supreme Court allowing of amendment application would amount to hearing of appeal against judgment of Supreme Court which is not permissible — Proposed amendment was not necessary for disposal of real controversy between parties — Proposed amendment was not only for addition of parties but in guise of amendment application, plaintiff-appellant wanted to nullify judgment of apex Court — There was no infirmity in impugned judgment — Civil appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court. AMENDMENT — (Setting up a new case)  Perveen Akhter v. Administrator, Municipal Corporation Mirpur & 4 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 139 (A)
  221. O. VII R.1 — Plaint — In case of a suit — A plaint is presented — The plaint has to be framed under O. VII R. 1 — After framing the plaint the suit has to be instituted in accordance with rule 1 Order IV. O. IV R.1 — O. VII rules 14 & 18 — The scheme for presentation of plaint and the documents accompanied with it is provided — A plaint can be rejected on any ground enumerated in O.VII, R. 11 — Likewise there are other provisions which are necessary for trial of suit — While this is not the case in an application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act — The Collector has to only satisfy himself:- a)         that there is written application;b)         that an application has been made by a person who is interested and has not accepted the award; c)         that he has rejected the award in respect of measurement of land or amount of compensation or a person to whom it is payable or has the  apportionment of compensation amount to the person interested; and d)         that the application is within the period prescribed under section 18(2) If these conditions are fulfilled then the Collector has to refer the matter to the Court and the Court has to decide the reference. Chief Eng. & another v. Anwar Begum & others 2009 SCR 199 (F)
  222. —Order VII, Rule 1 & 11—Contents of plaint—rejection of —U/o VII, Rule 1, plaintiff is duty bound to mention among others, all the particulars in the plaint constituting the cause of action and when it arose— Rule, 1 when appreciated in juxtaposition with Rule 11, it becomes clear that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose cause of action— for determination of the proposition, the plaint has to be minutely appreciated. Ahmed Saleem Ansari  v. Wajahat Hussain Ansari & 7 others 2017 SCR 1163 (A)
  223. O. VII, R. 2 & O. XLVII, R. 1 — Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 14 — Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 158 & 178 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 O. XLVI — Review of Supreme Court judgment — Money suit — Arbitration proceedings — Objection to report/award of the Arbitrator — Limitation — Parties having agreed for appointment of an arbitrator, Trial Court appointed arbitrator who filed report in presence of the parties — None of the parties filed objection on the report submitted by the arbitrator within stipulated period of 30 days — Later on after about 2-1/2 months, plaintiffs filed objection to the said report and prayed for setting aside the award — Court rejected the objection which was filed beyond the period of limitation and passed decree in terms of award submitted by the arbitrator — Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed appeal in High Court — High Court modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the extent of finding regarding overpayment to the plaintiff, and rest of the judgment and decree was upheld — Appeal filed before the Supreme Court having been dismissed the plaintiff had filed review petition — Award/report having been submitted by the arbitrator in presence of counsel for the parties, written notice was not the requirement of law — Plaintiff having failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review, no case for review was made out — Review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in circumstances. Safdar Ali Khan v. Azad Govt. of the State of JK 2012 SCR 331 (A,B,C& E)
  224. — Order VII Rule 6—institution of suit after expiry of prescribed limitation—it is mandatory that the plaint shall contain sufficient grounds upon which exemption from such law is claimed. Raja Muhammad Aftab & 6 others v. Raja Muhammad Iftikhar  & another 2020 SCR 141 (A)
  225. —Procedure—Order VII rule 6 C.P.C—when suit is filed beyond limitation—must be mentioned as a ground in plaint. See Khadim Hussain & others v. Mehrban Hussain & others  2022 SCR 1016
  226. (A)
  227. —O. VII Rule 7—agreement to sell—argument that suit forspecific performance not filed—decree cannot be granted—Held: thatthe plaintiff may claim reliefs as many as possible, however, the Court has to grant the relief which is proved and admissible under law–under the provisions of Rule 7, Order VII, the Court is also empowered to grant the relief which it thinks just— In case where the facts are fully stated, mere absence of any specific word of specific relief cannot be made basis for refusing the relief. Muhammad Ayub vs Ali Zaffar & others 2018 SCR 20 (G)
  228. —Order VII, rule 7, C.P.C.—absence of claim of any specific relief—Court competent to grant if relief not specifically claimed, but just in opinion of Court—Held: Order VII, rule 7, C.P.C. empowers the Court to grant the relief which it thinks just. In the case where the facts are fully stated, mere absence of any specific word of specific relief cannot be the bases for refusing the relief. Kamran Zaib v. Khadim Hussain & others  2022 SCR 1114 (E) 2018 SCR 20 rel.
  229. O. VII, R. 10 — The findings of the High Court appear to be the result of misunderstanding and mis-conception of facts — The Trial Court had ordered for return of plaints for presentation before the proper forum at District Headquarter Bhimber — Subsequently the Sub-Judge Samahni sought a reference by sending all the three files to District Judge Bhimber requesting that as the suits filed by the Nawaz and others could be filed at District Headquarter only, therefore, the suit filed by Muhammad Alam and others along with the suits of Haq Nwaz & others be transferred to Sub-Judge Bhimber — The observations made by the learned Judge High Court at page 4 of the impugned judgment are the result of some misunderstanding and misreading of the true spirit of the order passed by the District Judge — The learned Judge in the High Court except the aforestated observations has made no comments on the merits of the case of both the parties — Even by refusing to pass a decree in favour of Muhammad Alam no cogent reasons have been advanced — Held: In this view of the matter we have no alternative except to remand both the appeals to the High Court for seeking its wisdom on the merits of the cases of the parties — The learned counsel for the parties will be at liberty to raise  all the points before the High Court. Haq Nawaz Khan v.Muhammad Alam 2004 SCR 42 (A)
  230. O. VII, R. 10 — High Court observed that appeal can be treated as revision and revision as an appeal if field within limitation provided by the relevant law — Held: The revision petition before the High Court is competent where the order passed by lower Court is without jurisdiction or the lower Court had exercised the jurisdiction in an illegal manner or has exercised such jurisdiction not vested in it or refused to exercise such jurisdiction vested in it — Held further: It was essential for the High Court to point out the jurisdictional defect or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court — Had there been any illegality or jurisdictional defect, then the High Court was justified to convert the appeal into revision petition — No illegality or jurisdictional defect is pointed out in it — Held: High Court was not justified in treating the appeal as revision petition. Shoukat Usman v. United Bank Limited and 6 others 2010 SCR 173 (E)
  231. —Order VII Rule 10—plaint—jurisdiction—return of— According to the spirit of law when the plaint is returned to be presented before the proper forum, the proceedings shall commence on presentation of the plaint before such forum—proceedings conducted by the earlier Court which returned the plaint, shall be deemed coram-non-judice—Held:The returned plaint presented to Court of proper jurisdiction shall be considered as fresh proceedings for all intents and purposes. Saleem Ahmed &others vs Judge Family Court & others 2018 SCR 860 (B) PLD 1981 Kar (DB) 277, rel
  232. O. VII R. 11 — Rejection of plaint — If after perusing the plaint, the Court comes to the conclusion that the averments made in plaint if presumed true, the plaintiff may get the relief sought, the plaint cannot be rejected for absence of cause of action. Khadim H. v. Jamal H. 1997 SCR 61 (A)
  233. O. VII R. 11 — If a defendant seeks rejection of the plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action, he has to show that even if the allegations in the plaint are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Khadim Hussain v. Jamal Hussain and 2 others 1997 SCR 61 (B)
  234. A suit can be rejected under Order 7 R. 11 if the same does not disclose a cause of action for which the plaintiff is not only to allege the bundle of facts but is also required to show that not only the right has been infringed but a right to seek a relief was in existence — If at any stage, it appears to the Court that the suit is incompetent, the parties to the suit are at liberty to draw the Court’s attention to the same by way of an application and the Court can decide the matter — The policy of law is that incompetent suits should be laid at rest at the earliest moment so that no further time is wasted over what is bound to collapse as not being permitted by law. Abdul Rehman v. Sher Zaman 2004 SCR 129 (B)
  235. O. 7 R. 11 — Plaint shall be rejected in cases: (A)       Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (B)       Where the relief claimed is under-valued and plaintiff, being required by Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (C)       Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paperin sufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; and Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Khurshid Ahmed v. Sultan Habib & 50 others 2005 SCR 156 (A)
  236. O. VII, R. 11 — Cause of action — As the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed by him — Held: Plaint was rightly rejected. Azhar Iqbal v. Chairman Mirpur Development Authority and 5 others 2006 SCR 46 (A)
  237. O. VII, R. 11 — A bare reading of the provision shows that the stage at which the application is filed has not been provided — As far case law is concerned, it is settled by now that application under O.VII Rule 11 can be filed and decided before any further proceedings in the suit — The finding appears to be based on the principle that time of the Court should not be wasted and incompetent plaint should be buried in its infancy. Abdul Haleem Khan and 8 others v. Kh. Abdul Rasheed & 5 others 2007 SCR 277 (A)
  238. Order VII rule 11 — Each of the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion, that preliminary issues cannot be decided without recording any evidence — The phraseology applied particularly that of order VII Rule II CPC does not clearly give an impression of binding nature that the Court cannot look into the facts brought on record — It is correct that the trial Court before rejecting plaint is not necessarily required to enter into the defence version, but after the other party has filed written statement and issues have been framed by the Court, the preliminary issues cannot be decided without recording evidence — Held: If the Court finds itself of the opinion that the preliminary issues can better be decided after recording of evidence, the principle of concurrent finding of facts is equally applicable in such like cases.SafdarAli v.Ghulam H.2010 SCR 295 (A)
  239. Order VII rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Ground/term ‘cause of action’ — Meaning and determination of — Under order VII rule 11 CPC, a suit can be rejected if it does not, among others, disclose cause of action — The expression ‘cause of action’ has been defined to include every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff if traversed to prove in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court — In other words it means the whole bundle of material which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to succeed in the suit and which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment. Held: It had, therefore, nothing to do with the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, or the defence that may be set up by the defendant. Mehboob Kashmiri & another v. Khurshid Ahmed & another 2011 SCR 492 (B)
  240. O. VII, R.11 — Rejection of plaint — Considerations — Main consideration for rejection of plaint under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. was the contents of plaint keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case — Some undisputed or admitted material, any documents available, which according to the nature of the averments of the plaint, could be considered as part of plaint, could also be considered — In the present case, on appreciation of the averments of the plaint and documents annexed with it, it could not be concluded that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, or the suit was barred by law — Plaintiffs had claimed multiple remedies in their prayer clause — If any one of the prayer could not be granted, that would not mean that the suit would be treated barred for all other claimed remedies — Under the provisions of O. VII, R.  11, C.P.C. plaint could only be rejected, if all the reliefs claimed, were barred under the law — If some of the reliefs claimed were available the plaint could not be rejected, because under the codal provisions, there was no concept of piecemeal rejection of the plaint — Parties in the case were at variance on question of fact, which could not be resolved without recording the evidence — Rejection of plaint, in such state of affairs, was not justified — Trial Court was equipped with the powers to the effect that after framing issues, the plaint could be disposed of partly or in toto by deciding the purely legal issues — Rejection of plaint was not justified without framing issues or providing opportunity of hearing, and leading evidence to the parties in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case — Impugned judgment of High Court, not suffering from any legal infirmity, was upheld. M. Younis Arvi v. M. Aslam and 16 others 2012 SCR 135  2003 YLR 1788 distinguished.  Haji Allah Bakhsh’s 1995 SCMR 459; 2008 SCMR 1037; 2010 SCR 295; 2003 SCMR 1284; 1992 SCMR 1199; Kh. Muhammad Akbar’s case 2000 SCR 211 and Ahar Muhammad v. Messrs Memon Housing Services 2009 MLD 1378 rel.
  241. O. VII, R. 11 — Rejection of plaint — Duty of Court — It is the duty of the Trial Court to look into the contents of plaint and before proceeding further, if it comes to the conclusion that the suit is hit by any of the ingredients mentioned in the said provision, the Court is under obligation to reject the plaint straight away instead of going in to the other material as the common objection of said provision of law is to avoid the lengthy litigation — If the Court comes to the conclusion that the case which could not be succeeded latter on should be rejected at the preliminary stage. M. Hanif (Deceased) v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and 12 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 413 (A)
  242. O. VII, R. 11 — AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42 — Suit for specific performance — Agreement to sell — Joint special power-of-attorney — It was case of respondents/defendants that the named person who executed agreement to sell on his own as well as on behalf of others was not competent to do so as two persons were appointed as attorney, therefore, he was not authorized to do an act alone — Courts below rejected plaint  — Validity — An attorney can exercise only those powers or perform acts which have been specifically mentioned in the power-of-attorney and nothing beyond — Trial Court had not committed any illegality while rejecting plaint under O. 7, R. 11, C.P.C. — Both the Courts below while delivering impugned judgments/decrees had given their seniors thought on controversy involved in the matter and had rightly come to conclusion that named person was not competent to execute agreement to sell singly as the power-of-attorney was jointly given to two mentioned persons —  Further, all acts done on basis of power-of-attorney as a single attorney were against law and principles/guidelines given by Superior Courts — Civil appeal dismissed. REJECTION OF PLAINT — (Power–of–attorney)[Since power-of-attorney in question was given jointly to two persons, agreement to sell could not be executed by one of them singly. Plaint in suit for specific performance was rightly rejected. Supreme Court dismissed appeal]. M. Hanif (Deceased) v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and 12 others 2013 SCR 413 (E)
  243. O. VII, R. 11 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Noordad and 6 others v. Muhammad Sadiq and 40 others 2013 SCR 1168 (B)
  244. O, VII, R.11, — Conditions for rejection of the plaint — The plaintiff-appellants filed the suit on the ground of right of prior purchase while alleging that the consent decree dated 26.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhirkot was in fact a sale-deed and the same was passed with the connivance of the parties just to deprive the plaintiff-appellants of their right of prior purchase.  During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-respondents filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application — on filing a revision petition, Additional District Judge accepted the revision petition and rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The plaintiff-appellants filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court — the crucial question before the Court is that; whether the provisions of Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C attracted or not? Held: the questions; whether the consent decree dated 26.02.2005 is in fact a sale deed and whether the plaintiff-appellants have any right of pre-emption; can only be resolved after recording the evidence and the same does not come within the purview of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. It was premature to adjudge that the plaintiff-appellants have got no cause of action. Ikhlaq Hussain Shah v. Sabir Khan & 25 others 2015 SCR 1071 (A&B)  Muhammad Hussain & others v. Zafar  Iqbal   (civil   appeal   No.  122   of  2013  decided  on  21.05. 2014)    ref.
  245. Order VII, Rule 11 — writ — the Court has got ample powers to reject the plaint wherein, it appears from the contents of the plaint that it is barred by any law, but at the same time if a question of law has been agitated and the plaintiff is succeeded to make out prima facie case, the writ petition can be admitted for regular hearing. Azad Govt. v. R. Masood Mumtaz Rathore 2016 SCR 480 (A)
  246. O. VII R. 11 (A) — What cause of action means? The ‘cause of action’ refers to every fact which if traversed, it should be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right — It means the whole of material facts which are necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove, in order to succeed — Precisely the term, ‘cause of action’ refers to the ground on the basis of which the plaintiff asks for a favourable judgment. Abdul Rehman v. Sher Zaman 2004 SCR 129 (A) PLD 1977 Lahore 1243, PLD 1967 D.190 rel.
  247. —Order VII, Rule 11— rejection of plaint— without any legal cause of action or disclosure of material facts and particulars that the plaintiff has got any cause of action, proceeding with the plaint is not permissible under law.  Ahmed Saleem Ansari  v. Wajahat Hussain Ansari & 7 others 2017 SCR 1163 (C) 2011 SCR 492 rel.
  248. —Order VII, Rule 11—rejection of plaint—subsequent suit—trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action—Held: legally, a plaintiff is not precluded from filing fresh plaint on the same cause of action after removing the defects. Shahzada Begum & others  v. Syed Talib Hussain Shah & others 2019 SCR 273 (A)
  249. —-order VII, rule 11—rejection of plaint—prayer for multiple reliefs—plaint cannot be rejected—on ground that one of claimed reliefs—cannot be granted— As the appellants claimed the multiple remedies in the prayer clause, therefore, in view of the case law referred to hereinabove the trial Court was not justified to reject the plaint mere on the ground that one of the claimed reliefs cannot be granted. Marim Bibi & others v. Hakim Ali & others 2017 SCR 944 (C)
  250. —Order VII, Rule 11, CPC—rejection of plaint—powers of—when to be exercised—when plaint does not disclose causes of action—right has been fringed —relief sough still exist—policy of law—incompetent suits should be laid at rest—to avoid wastage of time— The powers under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. can be exercised where the plaint does not disclose cause of action for which the plaintiff has not only to challenge bundle of the facts but he is also required to show that some right had been infringed and right to seek relief was also in existence.  The policy of law is that the incompetent suits should be laid at rest at the earliest moment so that no further time is wasted on that which was bound to collapse at the end. Muhammad Mumtaz & others v. Abdul Rashid & others 2017 SCR 1485 (B)  PLD 1967 Lahore 1074, PLD 1977 Lahore 1243, PLD 1967 Dacca 190, 1979 CLC 502 & AIR 1977 SC 2421 rel.
  251. —Order VII, Rule 11,CPC—rejection of plaint—time barred, incompetent and fictitious suits to be buried from inception—continuation of such suit cannot be allowed for pleasing a party—suit land duly in 1973 awarded—entered in record of rights, as such—land , later on, land duly exchanged with land of father of the defendants/respondents—award and exchange of land not challenged timely at appropriate forum—suit being barred by law—and time barred—rightly, rejected by the trial Court—appeal dismissed— A suit which is on the face of it is time-barred or is incompetent and fictitious is liable to be buried from its inception. The continuation of such proceedings cannot be allowed for pleasing a party which ultimately has to fail. In the case in hand, the land in question was acquired by the Government vide award No. 191-92, dated 26.1.1973.  The same was duly entered in the record of rights.  Thereafter, the said land was exchanged with the land of the father of the respondents after approval of the Government.  Neither the award nor the exchange-deed has been challenged by the plaintiff-appellants in time at the appropriate forum, therefore, their suit was barred by law and was also hopelessly time-barred. The trial Court, therefore, has rightly rejected the plaint while exercising the powers under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Muhammad Mumtaz & others v. Abdul Rashid & others 2017 SCR 1485 (C)
  252. —Order VII        rule        11—-rejection  of plaint—main consideration is the contents of the plaint—If the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or it appears from the statement of the averments of the plaint that the suit is barred by law then plaint can be rejected. Sadiq & others vs Mst. Ulfat Jan & others 2018 SCR 902 (A) 2016 SCR 388, ref
  253. —Order               VII          rule        11—limitation   Act—    section 18—rejection of plaint on the point of limitation and cause of action— Held:According to averment, when the fraud is alleged, then insuch like cases, the provision of section 18 of the Limitation Act are attracted and it becomes to be a factual proposition. Sadiq & others vs Mst. Ulfat Jan & others 2018 SCR 902 (B)
  254. —Order VII rule 11—-rejection of plaint—trial Court placed reliance on some orders of the revenue Courts and statements recorded therein which are not relied upon in the plaint—- Neither these have been tendered in evidence nor made part of record according to law–-held:The material which is made part of the record of the case can only be considered according to law. Sadiq & others vs Mst. Ulfat Jan & others 2018 SCR 902 (C) 2016 SCR 1334 and 2018 SCR 532 ref
  255. —order VII, rule II, —rejection of plaint—appeal against rejection—the order of rejection of plaint by fiction of law, is a decree and filing of separate decree is not requirement of law–appeal cannot be dismissed on this ground— Syed Asif Hussain Shah & 13 others v. Mian Shah & 43 others 2020 SCR 793 (B)
  256. —Order VII, rule 11—case of action—nondisclosure —if on examining the plaint, the Court comes to the conclusion that the suit does not disclose cause of action, the same can be rejected. Tahir Ayub versus Naeem Ayub & 10 others 2021 SCR 576 (E)
  257. — Order VII, Rule II—rejection of plaint after written statement —trial Court rejected the plaint— High Court remanded the case to the trial Court for decision on merits after recording the evidence–Supreme Court held: that after filing of the written statement, it was enjoined upon the trial Court to frame issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties and after recording the evidence decide the suit on merit. Mst. Razia Begum & others v. Mr. Asgher Ali Malik & others 2022 SCR 227  (A) 2008 SCMR 1037 and 1995 SCMR 459 ref
  258. —Order VII rule 11—rejection of plaint—plaint shall be rejected where suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law—the Court while deciding such an application must have due regard to the statements in the plaint—whether a suit is barred by any law, it must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement. Muhammad Khaliq v           Fatima Bi & others 2022 SCR 351 (A)
  259. —Order VII, rule 11—rejection of plaint— the plaint can only be rejected if all the reliefs claimed are barred by law—if some of the reliefs claimed are available, the plaint cannot be rejected because under the codal provision, there is no concept of piecemeal rejection of the plaint. Abdul Ghani & others v. Abdul Latif & others 2022 SCR 766 (A)
  260. —Order VII, rule 11—rejection of plaint—consideration of—for applying the provisions, the Court has to consider only the contents of the plaint and in peculiar facts and circumstances, undisputed and admitted documents on the basis of which the averments of plaint have been made, may also be considered. Abdul Ghani & others v. Abdul Latif & others 2022 SCR 766 (B)
  261. —Order VII rule 11—clauses (a) and (d) — rejection of plaint–exercise of powers—consideration of—the relevant facts need to be looked into for deciding application under Order VII rule 11are the averments of the plaint—the trial Court can exercise the powers at any stage—for deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d), the averments in the plaint are germane—the pleas taken in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant and shall not be taken in to consideration—the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas made in the plaint. Muhammad Khaliq v Fatima Bi & others 2022 SCR 351 (B & C) 2012 SCR 135 & 1994 SCMR 826 rel
  262. —Order VII rule 11—clauses (a) and (d) — rejection of plaint–guiding principle for deciding an application highlighted. Muhammad Khaliq v      Fatima Bi & others 2022 SCR 351 (D)
  263. Order VII, Rule 11 — clause (A) — rejection of plaint — cause of action — contents of plaint to be appreciated — for rejection of the plaint, it is statutory requirement that the Court should have proper appreciation of the contents of the plaint. Held: after application of the judicial mind and due appreciation of the plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action the same can be rejected. Raja Gul Nawaz v. Kamran & 7 others 2016 SCR 338 (A) 2012 SCR 135, M. Abdul Rehman Abbasi and others vs. Abdul Waheed & others (Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2013 decided on 15.10.2014) and Syed Hassan Gillani and others vs. Khawaja Ghulam Nabi & others (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2014 decided on 12.01.2015), rel.
  264. O. VII, R. 11 (B) and (C) — The Court is bound to give an opportunity for making up deficiency in the Court fee—Mere note of the office with regard to the deficiency in payment of Court fee cannot be deemed to be a sufficient notice to the concerned party rather the opportunity for making up the deficiency should be given by the Court — Fixing a definite period for making up the deficiency in the Court fee is requirement of law. Sharbat Khan v. WAPDA 2000 SCR 239 (A)
  265. Order VII Rule 11(B) & (C) — Non payment of proper Court-fee — Order VII Rule 11(B) and (C) postulate that in case a relief claimed is undervalued and the Court-fee is not paid the plaintiff must be required by the Court to correct the valuation and pay proper Court-fee within the time fixed by the Court — If a plaintiff or appellant fails to do the needful within the time fixed by the Court, the plaint or memorandum of appeal, as the case may be, can be rejected — No such opportunity was provided to the appellants on the memorandum of appeals and, thus, the High Court was not legally justified to hold that the memorandum of appeal could be dismissed for failure to pay the Court-fee. Azad Govt. and another v. Khurshid Ahmad and another 2001 SCR 415 (B)
  266. O. 7 R. 11(D) — The respondents were shown in the plaint the residents of District Sargodha and Rahim Yar Khan, the plaint was not maintainable in the Courts of law established in A.K. Kotli — Court should have gone through the contents of the plaint before assuming the jurisdiction — After the meaningful study of the plaint it is clear that it does not disclose a cause of action at Kotli, the same was barred under O. 7 R. 11 — The High Court has very vast powers in revisional jurisdiction as well as under the Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — The High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint. M. Mumtaz Malik v. S.H.O. Police Station Kotli& others 2003 SCR 84 (A)
  267. — order VII, rule 11 — rejection of plaint — a plaint can only be rejected if all the reliefs sought are legally barred — if some of the reliefs remain legally available, the entire plaint cannot be rejected — under the codal provisions, there is no concept of piecemeal rejection of plaint. Muhammad Ejaz Khan versus Fehmida Kausar & others 2023 SCR 951 (A) 2009 MLD 1378 rel.
  268. — order VII, rule 11 — order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 — application for interim injunction — hearing of —- rejection of plaint — effect of — no application for rejection of plaint pending — case was fixed for argument on the application for interim injunction— trial Court vacated interim relief and rejected plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction — trial Court has the authority to reject a plaint even without filing of a formal application, however, it is mandatory for the trial Court to provide the plaintiff with an opportunity of hearing — trial Court’s sole responsibility was to examine the fundamental principles of governing the grant of denial of temporary injunctions — held: once the suit commences and the plaint is not rejected at the initial stage, the Court must afford the plaintiff an opportunity to explain that why plaint should not be rejected — without providing opportunity of hearing, the rejection of plaint runs contrary to the principles of natural justice. Muhammad Ejaz Khan versus Fehmida Kausar & others 2023 SCR 951 (B) 2003 MLD 109, 2004 MLD 1909 rel.
  269. — order VII, rule 11 — order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 — reject of plaint — interim injunctions — difference between scope of proceedings — there is mark difference between the scope of proceedings of an application u/o. xxxix, Rules 1&2, in a pending proceedings and rejection of plaint u/o vii Rule 11 on account of failure to disclose a cause of action or the plaint being barred under some provisions of law — held: the trial Court was not justified to reject the plaint u/o vii, Rule 11, while deciding application u/o xxxix Rules 1 & 2 —-  Muhammad Ejaz Khan versus Fehmida Kausar & others 2023 SCR 951 (C&D) 1994 SCMR 826 rel.
  270.   —Order VII rule 11 (d) — rejection of plaint—consideration of– the Court shall not look into any other documents disclosed by the defendant for the first time or the statements made either in the written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint—the defendant who applied for rejection of the plaint has to accept primafacie that all the statements made in the plaint are true, correct and sacrosanct and if it appears that the suit is hit by the provisions of law, there is no difficulty on the part of the Court to reject the plaint. Muhammad Khaliq v Fatima Bi & others 2022 SCR 351 (E)
  271. —Order VII rule 11 (d), section 11 — rejection of plaint—plea of attraction of principle of res-judicata—though there is reflection of the second suit in the plaint but the Court should not venture to look into the documents surfaced for the first time at the behest of the defendant for the purpose of rejection of the plaint—the Court has to consider whether the subject disputes in earlier suit is identical and similar to the disputes involved in the instant suit— res-judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d)—an adjudication of plea of res-judicata requires consideration of pleadings, issues and decision in previous suit, thus such a plea will be beyond the scope of order of Order VII Rule 11(d)–principle of res-judicata is mixed question of facts and law, it would not be proper for the Court to reject the plaint on such score but frame issues in the light of pleading and then resolve the question of maintainability of the plaint in accordance with law. Muhammad Khaliq v Fatima Bi & others 2022 SCR 351 (F)
  272. O. VII rules 11 & 13 — A suit rejected under Order VII rule 11 is no bar for filing a fresh suit subject to limitation under O. VII r.13.  Amanat Ali v. Sardar Bibi and others 2002 SCR 265 (F)
  273. حکمVII   قاعدہ26 —  حکم VIII،  قاعدہ 13—فراھمی فہرست ہا قائمقامان مدعی و مدعاعلیہ ہمراہ دعویٰ و جواب دعویٰ— لازمی—حکمVII   قاعدہ 26 اور حکم VIII،  قاعدہ 13مجموعہ ضابطہ دیوانی میں بذریعہ ترمیم یہ لازمی قرار دیاگیا ہے کہ دائری دعویٰ کے وقت مدعی اور( جواب دعویٰ کے وقت) مدعاعلیہ ، قانونی قائمقامان بصورت وفات کی فہرست شامل کریں گے اور اس فہرست میں اس شخص کا نام اور مکمل پتہ بھی درج کریں گے جو بصورت وفات عدالت کو اطلاع دے گا اور قائمقامان مدعی و مدعا علیہ کے حوالہ سے درخواست دائر کرے گا۔اس فہرست میں کسی بھی وقت ترمیم کی جا سکتی ہے اور فرد اطلاع دہدہ کو بھی تبدیل کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ اسد وغیرہ  بنام زاہدہ بیگم وغیرہ(ٹ)2016 SCR 1522  
  274. حکمVII   قاعدہ26 —  حکم VIII،  قاعدہ 13— حکمXII ، قاعدہ 11—فراھمی فہرست قائمقامان مدعی و مدعاعلیہ کے احکامات کا اطلاق اپیل دیوانی پر ہوتا ہے —  قاعدہ 11 حکم XXII کی منشاء کے مطابق قاعدہ 26 حکم VIIو قاعدہ 13 حکم VIII ضابطہ دیوانی کا اطلاق اپیل پر بھی ہوتا ہے۔ اگر ان قواعد پر ان کی روح و منشاء کے مطابق عملدرآمد کیا جائے تو کسی دعویٰ اور اپیل میں نہ تو تقرری قائمقامان کا تنازع پیدا ہو اور نہ ہی غیر ضروری طوالت اور مقدمہ بازی کا سبب بنے۔ اسد وغیرہ  بنام زاہدہ بیگم وغیرہ(ث)2016 SCR 1522 
  275.  O. VIII R. 1 — Iqbal Dawa- filed by a co-sharer not binding on the other co-sharers which is detrimental to their interest. Manga Khan v. Hassan Muhammad 1992 SCR 187 (A)
  276. O. VIII rules 3 to 5 — It is not sufficient in the written statement to simply deny an averment made in the plaint or the writ petition; rather the fact shown that the averment made in the suit or writ petition is untrue must be stated. AJK Govt. & others v. A. Majeed & another 2002 SCR 24 (D)
  277. O. VIII, rule 3&4 — Pertains to written statements and averments made in it — R. 3 provides that denial to be specific — The defendant must deal specifically with each allegation and fact of which he does not admit the truth — R. 4 deals with the evasive denial — Combined reading of rules 3,4 & 5 shows that defendant shall specifically deny each allegation of fact which he does not admit — The facts must be specifically denied and not evasively — Held: If such allegation of fact in the plaint is not denied specifically or by necessary implication it shall be taken to be admitted. Public Health Engineering Division & another v. Aurangzeb Khan 2008 SCR 590 (D)
  278. O. VIII rules 3, 4 & 5 — Rule 3 envisages that it shall not be sufficient for defendant to deny generally but has to deal specifically with each allegation — Rule 4 makes it imperative for the defendant not to deny evasively but to answer the point of substance expressly — Rule 5 clearly contains that if a fact is not denied then it shall be deemed as admitted. Muhammad Rafiq Chaudhary v. Azad Govt. & 4 Others 2008 SCR 60 (B)
  279. O. VIII, R. 4 — See Specific Relief Act, 1877, S. 42. Pervaiz Khan and 27 others v. Adalat Khan and 217 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 262 (D)
  280. O. VIII, R. 4 — Evasive denial — If the defendant fails to specifically deal with each allegation of fact, it will amount to admission. [Land in question was in common ownership of the parties. In such state of affairs, appellants instead of suit for possession ought to have approached Revenue Court for partition. Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court]. Pervaiz Khan v. Adalat Khan 2013 SCR  262 (E)
  281. —Order VIII, rule 4 and 5—specific/evasive denial— admission— according to the settled principle of law, governing the pleadings, every question of fact must be denied specifically or by necessary implication and evasive denial amounts to admission. Qamar yaqoob & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 795 (A) 2002 SCR 315 and 2019 SCR 426 ref.
  282. O. VIII RR. 4 & 5 — Evasive denial — Means a reply or answer on a point of substance specifically pleaded by the plaintiff by furnishing full or further details and if the defendant in his rply denies them as a whole by using precise language of allegations denied — The denied will be evasive — O VIII r. 4 will be attracted — But such denial will constitute and be considered as admitted if the allegations of fact, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, are stated to be not admitted — It, therefore, follows that if the reply by defendant reveals that he does not accept the allegation, evasive denial will not be constituted. M. Akram v. G. Murtaza 2008 SCR 184 (D)
  283. O. VIII RR. 4&5 are to be read and interpreted in each case keeping in view the facts of the case and object and basic purpose of the rule is to narrow down the field of controversy and to determine on what issues the parties are at variance — Before holding that the denial amounts to admission the Court must also adhere to O. XII, rules 1 to 6 C.P.C. and the relevant rules of evidence dealing with admission in civil cases. M. Akram v. Ghulam Murtaza & 15 others 2008 SCR 184 (E)
  284. O. VIII R. 5 — An evasive denial shall be deemed to be the admission of the averment made in the relevant para. Shahida Khadim v. Secretary Education AJ&K and 5 others 2002 SCR 315 (A)
  285. O. VIII rule 5 — Clearly contains that every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted shall be taken as admitted — There is nothing on the record on the basis of which it could be said that respondents have denied any allegation of writ petition — The rules of procedure applicable to writ petitions are the same which are applicable to civil suits. Muhammad Rafiq Ch. v. Azad Govt. & 4 Others 2008 SCR 60 (A)
  286. —Order VIII, Rule 5—Writ petition—appeal—competency of–under matric police constables—annual increment to remove discriminatory treatment—Finance Deptt. not accorded concurrence—Deptt. admitted the claim of petitioners—-neither Finance Deptt. nor the Accountant General’s Office filed any appeal— comments filed by the Deptt. impliedly amount to admission of the case of the petitioners/respondents after which the Deptt. is estopped from filing the appeal by taking inconsistent stand. Inspector General of Police v. Naseen Ahmed & 16 others 2022 SCR 476 (A & B)
  287. O. VIII r. 9 — Enables the Court to require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties at any time — After the plaint is amended, the Court should call upon the defendant to file an additional written statement if he chooses to do so, particularly after the new added defendant,s plea in his written statement — In fact it is duty of the Court to have given an opportunity to the original defendant after the plaint has been amended and new pleadings have been brought on record — The object of Code is to decide rights of the parties and not to punish them for the mistakes committed in the conduct of their cases. Inhabitants of Singola Through Muhammad v. Azad Govt. & 22 others 2001 SCR 518 (A)
  288. O. VIII R. 9 — Provides that a new plea cannot be taken even in the written statement except with the permission of the Court, what to talk of the replication because when a new point is raised in the replication the opposite party has no chance to rebut the same. Inhabitants of Singola Through Muhammad  v. Azad Govt. & 22 others 2001 SCR 518 (C)
  289. O. IX — Personal attendance of a party- Court can compel a party to attend the Court personally — Yet it is the discretion of the trial Court. Abdul Khaliq v. Brig. A. Rehman 1992 SCR 134 (A)
  290. O. IX — Ex-parte order — Government respondent having been served in time failed to arrange its representation — No reason given in the application for setting aside ex-parte order – Application dismissed. Custodian of Evacuee Property v. Mangta Khan 1992 SCR 256 (A)
  291. O. IX – No cogent reason shown- Ex — Parte order maintained and respondent not allowed to file concise statement. Muhammad Yunus v. Azad  Govt 1992 SCR 340 (B)
  292. O. IX — Refers to the procedure which shall apply in case either of the parties does not appear on the date fixed for hearing of a civil lis particularly before the Court of law. Kafait Ali  v. Muhammad Hanif 2004 SCR 232 (A)
  293. O. IX R. 1 — Ex-parte proceedings — No limitation for an application under this rule — Term ‘good cause’ is wider than the “sufficient cause” — It is discretionary power of the Court to holds some grounds as good cause. M. Hussain v. Dana Begum and 7 others 2003 SCR 418 (B)
  294. O. IX rules 1 & 7 read with order XVII rule 1 — Ex-parte order — Remedy against — Remedy provided by this rule has to be resorted to even though the order may be considered to be illegal — This rule is applicable not only to the absence of first date of hearing but also to adjourned dates of hearing — Provisions of rule 7 attracted only if the defendants want setting aside of such proceedings. Muhammad Hussain v. Dana Begum and 7 others 2003 SCR 418 (A)
  295. O. IX rule 3 & 4 suit dismissed in default under R. 3-Two remedies available under R.4 i.e. either an application for the restoration of suit could be made or a fresh suit on original cause of action could be brought subject to the period of limitation. Ch. Muhammad Siddique v. Arshad Mehmood 1993 SCR 280 (A)
  296. O. IX rule 6(1) — Guidance has been provided to the Courts to pass orders if the plaintiff appears and defendant does not appear despite service to proceed ex-parte against such defendant. Kafait Ali v. Muhammad Hanif  2004 SCR 232 (B)
  297. O. IX R.7 — The trial Court dismissed the application of the counsel for the defendants observing that the written statement cannot be accepted because the order had already been passed — Held: Impression of trial Court contrary to O.IX R.7 C.P.C. — It is directed that the trial Court shall give one opportunity to the defendants to file written statement. M. Hayat Khan v. Ali Akbar Khan 1997 SCR 190 (B)
  298. Order IX, Rule, 7— limitation Act, 1908 Article 181 —ex-parte proceedings—limitation for setting aside—contention that the application was time barred because the same was liable to be moved on the very next date is devoid of any force—Held: there is no limitation for setting aside such ex-parte proceedings, however, in some of the cases it has been observed that the application can be filed within a period of three years. Zulfiqar Abbasi v. Sohrab Khan & others 2017 SCR 1066 (B)
  299. O. IX. R. 8 — Restoration of suit dismissed due to non-appearance — Held: Suit dismissed in default can be restored after setting aside the dismissal — If the plaintiff satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing — Reliance placed on certain judgments including those of this Court that Court should wait till the final hours of the Courts time and should not dismiss the suit in hurry. Manzoor Hussain & 2 others v. Muhammad Khurshid Khan & others 2005 SCR 397 (A)
  300. O. IX r. 8 — There is no express provision regulating the process of restoration of an application dismissed for non-prosecution — O.IX R. 8 regulates the procedure where a suit is dismissed due to absence of the plaintiff — It does not cater the case of the dismissal of an application filed for restoration of the dismissed suit. Abdul Aziz Chaudhry v. Gulzar Ahmed 2007 SCR 398 (A)
  301. IX, R. 8 — Dismissal of suit — Effect — The effect of dismissal of suit under the said provision bars the fresh suit on the same cause of action.  Sawar Khan v. Banaris Khan 2013 SCR 229 (A)
  302. O. IX, R. 8 — Provision of — Words ‘hearing of the suit’ — Connotation — The words ‘hearing of the suit’ have been used in a definite sense — It refers to the determination of the question which results in final determination of the suit — This includes the filing of the written statement, recording of evidence, hearing of arguments, rendering judgment, investigation of controversy between the parties, striking of issues, taking evidence and tendering of comments — Any date which is fixed for progress of main suit would be a date of hearing.  Sawar Khan v. Banaris Khan and another 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 229 (B)
  303. O. IX, R. 8 — Provision of — Rule — This rule applies only where the plaintiff is absent and not where the defendants are not present.Sawar Khanv. Banaris Khan & another 2013 SCR 229 (C)
  304. Order IX, rule 8 — dismissal of suit for non-prosecution — suit can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the date is fixed for hearing.  Held: if the date is not fixed for hearing, neither the suit can be dismissed nor ex-parte order can be recorded. If any such order is recorded it will be deemed as without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law.  Sabir Hussain v. Azra Begum 2014 SCR 803 (A) PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 223, PLD 2008 Karachi 103, 1999 YLR 2464 & 1992 SCMR 707 rel.
  305. O. IX, Rr. 8, 9 — Specific Relief Act, 1877, S. 54 — Suit for perpetual injunction — Controversy started when appellant filed fresh suit regarding same land and on same cause of action — Where a suit was dismissed under O. 9, R. 9, C.P.C., the subsequent suit on the same cause of action was precluded — Question for determination before Supreme Court — Analysis — When earlier suit was dismissed, the case was fixed for framing of issues which fell within the purview of “hearing of the suit” — Effect of dismissal of suit under O. 9, R. 8, C.P.C. bars the fresh suit on the same cause of action — Impugned judgment was well-reasoned and had been passed after proper appreciation of law — Appeal dismissed. DISMISSAL OF SUIT — (Fresh suit) [Suit for perpetual injunction was dismissed under O. IX, R. 8, C.P.C., therefore, fresh suit on same cause of action was barred. Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court].  Sawar Khan v. Banaris Khan and another 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 229 (D)
  306. O. IX, R. 9 — Provides: Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under R. 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action — But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside — S. 141 — The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as for as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. Mumtaz H. and others v. Muhammad Fazil Khan  2000 SCR 600 (E)
  307. Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. — According to the principle of law when any suit or appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and subsequently restored — the proceedings conducted in such suit or appeal before dismissal also stand revived. As the matter of grant of interim injunction is part of the proceedings of appeal. Held: neither any separate application was required for restoration of such proceedings nor on restoration of appeal such order became non-existent. Ghulam Rabani v. Muhammad Fiaz & another 2015 SCR 317 (B)1982 SCMR 33 rel.
  308. Order IX, Rule, 9 — contention—that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and subsequently was restored but no application for restoration of the application for interim injunction was filed — the same became non-existent — Held: when any suit or appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and subsequently restored, the proceedings conducted in such suit or appeal before dismissal also stand revived — the matter of grant of interim injunction is part of the proceedings of appeal, therefore, neither any separate application was required for restoration of such proceedings nor on restoration of appeal such order became non-existent. Ghulam Rabani v. Muhammad Fiaz & another 2016 SCR 295 (B) 1982 SCMR 33 rel.
  309. Order IX, rule 9 — Articles 181 & 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 — limitation for suit dismissed for non-prosecution when date not fixed for hearing — held: if a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution when the date is not fixed for hearing, limitation will be governed under Article 181 and not 163 of the Limitation Act. Sabir H. v. Azra Begum 2014 SCR 803 (B) 2009 CLC 351 rel.
  310. —Order, IX rule 9—restoration of case—it is mandatory for the applicant to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for nonappearance—sufficient cause means, some cause beyond the control of the party—for successfully invoking the aid of the Court, the claimant must have acted with due care and attention. Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Sarfraz & others 2022 SCR 502 (A)
  311. Ex parte decree — ex-parte decree is voidable — Unless it is annulled it will have all the force of a valid decree — A defendant against whom an ex parte decree is passed is entitled to seek the remedy by moving an application under Order IX rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside such a decree within thirty days from the date of the decree or from the date of knowledge or by preferring an appeal from the decree or by seeking review or by instituting a suit on the ground of fraud. Muhammad Ilyas  v. Aziz-ur-Rehman & others 1995 SCR 268 (A)
  312. O. IX R. 13 — Ex-parte order or decree — Setting aside of — Court has to satisfy itself that sufficient cause existed for non-appearance but for setting aside an order under O. IX R. 7 only a ‘good cause’is to be assigned.M. Hayat Khan and 3 othersv.Ali Akbar Khan1997 SCR 190 (A)
  313. O. X1 rule 2 — Question of omitting or relinquishing a point which was not foreseeable in future could not have been taken by the plaintiff-appellants in the previous suit. Muhammad Sabir and 7 others v. Sian Maqbool Hussain and 3 others 2000 SCR 174 (A)
  314. Section 12(2), CPC — application—limitation of — limitation for filing the application under section 12 (2) of Civil Procedure Code the prescribed limitation for filing the application is 3 years. Ch. Muhammad Zaman  v. Amir Hanif & 19 others 2014 SCR 1571 (A)
  315. O. XII R. 3(2) — Automatic abatement of appeal — Effect of — Order XXII rule 3(2) — Adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 5.3.2003 —- No powers for dismissal of any cause on account of abatement were available to the Courts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir therefore, no question arises for dismissal of appeal on account of abatement automatically. Mst. Hameeda Begum and another v. Mazhar Hussain and 40 others 2009 SCR 27 (G)
  316. O. XII, Rr. 1, 2 — Production of documents at subsequent stage — Provision of — Contemplated.  Rashid Mehmood and another v. Sardar Begum and 6 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 200 (A)
  317. —O. XIII—application for production of some documents–pre-emption suit—during the pendency of suit—an application filed by the plaintiff for producing—the copy of Jamabandi–which has been prepared after 3 years of institution of the suit–validity of such document—Held: that no reason has been listed in the application filed by the plaintiff for producing a document at such a belated stage which has been prepared after 3 years of institution of the suit. Shahid Sharif & 9 others  v. District Judge Kotli & another 2020 SCR 387 (A)
  318. —Order XIII, rule, 1—Documentary evidence to be produced at first hearing—mandatory nature—rule 2 comes into operation after application of rule 1- the parties to the suit shall produce the documentary evidence on which they intend to relay and he court, after proper scrutiny and application of judicial mind, shall record the admission or, as the case may be, denial of the parties. According to scheme of law, if the provision of rule 1 is applied in its true spirit then rule 2 comes into operation but when rule 1 has not been applied the question of application of rule 2 does not arise, as rules 2 speaks that the provision of non-production of the documentary evidence will operate to the extent of document which has not been produced in accordance with the requirement of rule I. Basharat Mehmood v. Raja Muhammad Waleed & 8 others 2017 SCR 257 (B) 2013 SCR 200 rel.
  319. —Order XIII, Rule 1—production of documentary evidence—at the first hearing of the suit—Held: it  is  incumbent  upon  the  parties  to  produce their  documentary  evidence  at  the  first  hearing  of the  suit.  First  hearing  of  the  suit  is  the  date  when the  Court  frames  issues  after  filing  of  written statement  by  the  defendants. Muhammad Ramzan Chughtai v.                             Arsahd Mahmood Ghazi & others 2017 SCR 444 (A)
  320. O. XIII R. 1 — Provides that all the documentary evidence in possession of the parties shall be produced at the first hearing — The party who basis his suit on certain documents shall file these documents with the plaint and other documents on which the party intends to rely shall be entered in the list filed with plaint — Held: There is an exception to R. 14 O. VII which is provided in R. 2 of O. XIII that documents can be provided at a later stage — Rule rests a discretion in the Court to receive the documents in evidence at a later stage — Although a condition has been imposed that good cause for non-production of documents has to be shown — The object of this condition is to exclude the possibility of forged documents being produced in evidence. Chief Engineer & another v. Anwar Begum & 9 others 2009 SCR 199 (I)
  321. O. XIII, rules 1 and 2 — It is incumbent  upon a party to produce a document at the first hearing of the suit and if a party  fails to do the needful, no documentary evidence which was in possession or power of a party is admissible unless and until sufficient cause is shown for its on-production. Ch. Liaqat Ali v. Mirza Abdul Aziz 1996 SCR 74 (A)
  322. O. XIII rule 1 and 2 are enacted with a purpose that nobody should manufacture the  evidence subsequently after filing the suit or written statement in the Court of law — Under order XIII rule 2 the Court has been given ample powers to receive in evidence the genuine documents even if those were not produced at the first date of hearing by the relevant party — Courts were liberal in according permission to produce copies of official record — However, they were very strict while dealing with private documents — Documents of suspicious and forged nature cannot be allowed to be brought on record — However, a party cannot be penalized on the ground of delay in granting permission to such documents whose authenticity was above suspicion — Documents in the present case attested copies of the revenue record which they have obtained in due course of law — The permission has not been refused that the documents were forged or their authenticity was suspicious rather was refused on account of delay which was not an absolute cause — Appellants are allowed to produce the documents in support of their claim subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. Muhammad Khaliq v. Tehsildar Settlement Mirpur 2002 SCR 343 (A)
  323. Order XIII, Rules 1, 2, CPC — Documents relied must be attached with plaint — Subsequent attachment of documents requires very strong reasons — Order XIII, Rules 1, 2 of CPC provides that all the documents which the parties relies, must be attached with the plaint —- Rule 2 of the same order provides that subsequent attachment of documents with the plaint although can be allowed but very strong reasons are required for the said permission by the Court. Muhammad Zahoor kausar v. Mst. Akbar Jan 2011 SCR 87 (C)
  324. O. XIII, Rr. 1, 2 — Specific Relief Act, 1877, Ss. 42/8 — Suit for declaration/possession — Production of documents at subsequent stage — Plaintiffs moved an application for placing some documents on record on ground that documents sought to be produced could not be placed earlier inadvertently — High Court had dismissed revision petition — Impugned judgment — Said rule does not prohibit the production of documents but only obliges the parties to show good cause to the satisfaction of the Court — According to new era trend, parties cannot be debarred from production of documents at belated stage which are not in their possession and power — Courts are always lenient to allow production of documents, which are copies of officials record — Further held, rule should be interpreted liberally to advance the cause of justice — Civil appeal was dismissed. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS — (Rule)  
  325. [In suit for declaration and possession, application for production of documents was allowed. Supreme Court dismissed appeal].  Rashid Mehmood and another v. Sardar Begum and 6 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 200 (C)
  326. O. XIII r. 1(3) — Change or addition of new parties — Effect of — Impleading of new defendant in addition to defendants of earlier suit without seeking relief against such new party would not ipso facto render the second suit on the subject matter as maintainable nor by such act,  the provisions of order XXIII, rule 1(3) could become redundant or defeated — Thus, the earlier suit on the same subject-matter having been withdrawn without seeking permission to file fresh suit on the same subject matter was neither competent nor maintainable. Muhammad Aziz Khan v. United Kashmir Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 17-miles & 6 others 2003 SCR 363 (E)
  327. O. XIII, R. 2 — Production of document at subsequent stage — Rule — It does’nt prohibit the production of documents but only obliges the parties to show good cause to the satisfaction of the Court. Rashid Mehmood and another v. Sr. Begum and others 2013 SCR 200 (B)
  328. O.  XIII,  R. 2 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Ss. 42, 44. Nazir Ahmed and 6 others Versus Riaz Ahmed and 5 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1069 (B)
  329. Order XIII, rule 2 — production of documents in evidence — discretion of Court — the documents which were not part of the record and reliance has not been placed on them, can be produced at some subsequent stage but subject to sufficient cause be shown.  Shaukat Usman v. UBL & 6 others 2014 SCR 438 (A)
  330. Order XIII, R. 2 — The discretion of Court in permitting production of a document is to be exercised keeping in view whether the document is authentic, the reasons for delay in production and the effect of production of such document in evidence at a late stage.  Delay itself should not be a ground for refusal to permit production but good cause must be shown and reasons for allowing should be recorded. Shaukat Usman v. UBL & 6 others 2014 SCR 438 (B)
  331. —Order XIII—rule 2, CPC—production of documents at later stage—on showing sufficient cause—-The statutory provisions of Rule 2 of Order XIII, CPC, itself speak that the Court is vested with the power to allow the production of documents if it is satisfied that the party has succeeded in showing the sufficient cause. Basharat Mehmood v. Raja Muhammad Waleed & 8 others 2017 SCR 257 (C)
  332. —Order XIII, Rule 2—production of documents at subsequent stage— Order XIII, Rule 2, authorise  the Court  to  receive  the  document  so  produced  which could  not  be  produced  in  accordance  with  Order, XIII,  rule  1,  CPC,  at  any  subsequent  stage, however,  at  the  same  time  it  has  been  provided  in the  said  rule  that  the  applicant  who  intends  to produce  documents  has  to  show  a  good  cause  to the  satisfaction  of  the  Court  for  non-production  of the  documents  under  Order  XIII,  rule  1,  CPC. Muhammad Ramzan v. Arsahd Mahmood Ghazi 2017 SCR 444 (B) 2013 SCR 200 rel.
  333. —O. XIII, R.2—effect of non-production of documents— receiving of documentary evidence at subsequent stage—if good cause shown—Court is bound to record reason for receiving such documentary evidence—In the present case, the trial Court has not assigned any reason even nothing mentioned in order sheets that any document has been placed before the Court. Mst. Akbar Jan &others vs Guldad Khan & others 2018 SCR 1129 (A)
  334. —O. XIII, R.2—effect of non-production of documents— document i.e. Jammabandi, placed with file of trial Court—without even knowledge of opponent party—the Trial Court and the High Court relied upon the said document—such document cannot be read in evidence or relied upon—The Supreme Court held that the judgments of both the Courts below are bad in law which cannot be upheld. Mst. Akbar Jan &others vs Guldad Khan & others 2018 SCR 1129  (B) —Order XIII rule 2—production of document in evidence—if a party fails to do the needful on first date of hearing, then such documentary evidence in possession of the party, remains unadmissible in evidence unless and until sufficient cause is shown for its non-production. Muhammad Shakoor Khan v.       Muhammad Irzad Khan 2022 SCR 507 (A)
  335. O. XIII, R.4 — Once the evidence of a party is closed — It concludes evidence of all — Whether oral or written — Accepting copies at a belated stage amounts to reopening the case which has already been closed and a right has accrued in other party. Abdul Rashid v. Abdul Ghani & others 2006 SCR 188 (A)
  336. O. XIV — Provides details for framing of issues and effect of non-observance of any rule — Any flaw or fault on the part of trial Court in framing or reframing issues shall not render the judgment subject to reversal. Syed Shujahat Hussain Kazmi v. Mst. Nazish Kazmi 2007 SCR 438 (B)
  337. —O, XIV, RR. 1 & 3—issues—framing of—issue necessary for disposal of case, if not framed—objection regarding not framing the proper issue could have been raised by the party at the earlier stage and if the same is not done it would be deemed to have been waived. Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Khaliq & others 2019 SCR 339 (B)
  338. —Order XIV, rules 1 and 3—issues— framing of— objection regarding non framing of proper issue can be raised at earlier stage if the same is not done, it would be deemed to have been waived. Public Works Department & 5 others versus Aurangzeb & another 2021 SCR 336 (A) PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 73 rel.
  339. — Order XIV, Rule 1—-issues—framing of—when one party affirms and other party denies a material proposition of fact or law, then only issues arise—if there is no specific denial, the question of framing the issue does not, generally, arise—issues arise from the divergent pleadings of the parties, i.e. plaint and written statement–if the defendant fails to make his defence, then the framing of issues is not necessary. Nusrat Bibi v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 88 (A & B) —Order XIV, Rule 1— issues— framing of issues is not a mere formality but it is a stage through which the Court has to bring all controversies between the parties onto specific and clear notice of their liabilities—under the mandate of Order XIV, Rule 1, it is incumbent upon the Court to frame issues, in the light of the controversies raised in the pleadings—the object of framing issues is to ascertain real issues by narrowing down the area of conflict and determine between the parties where they differ. Munir & others v. Gulzman & others 2022 SCR 92 (A)
  340. O. XVI, rule 1 & 2 — Witness calling of — Furnishing of list within 7 days — Party shall not be permitted to call the witnesses other than those contained in the list, except with the permission of the Court and after showing good cause — It is firstly the responsibility of the party to comply with rules — If it is beyond the control of the party then the Court if thinks that there was sufficient cause for its indulgence — It may allow the application in the interest of justice not that the party so desires or wants. Tufail Ahmad v. Raja Muhammad Akbar 2006 SCR 202 (A)
  341. O. XVII, rule 1 — Adjournments of hearing — The provision of Order XVII, rule. 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are very much clear which speaks that the adjournments can only be granted for sufficient cause and that also with costs if so deemed proper by the court. The statutory provision also speaks that hearing of the suit shall be continued from day to day and adjournment for recording of evidence shall only be made for the reasons to be recorded by the Court. Zakia Begum v. Mushtaq Khan & 5 others 2014 SCR 658 (B)
  342. —O. XVII, R 2—restoration of suit dismissed in default–the application for restoration of the suit filed within a period of 3 years cannot be treated as time barred—when an order of the Court itself is illegal and prejudice the case of a party, then this fact can be considered as sufficient cause for restoration of the suit dismissed in default. Sardar Tabarik Ali & another v. Administrator Municipul Corporation & 6 others 2020 SCR 372 (A) 1998 SLC 1128, PLD 2008 Kar. 103, PLD 1970 Quetta 79, PLD 2005 Quetta 57 and 2002 CLC 71 rel
  343.  —O. XVII, R. 2 & S.115—application for restoration of suit—revisional jurisdiction of the High Court—the learned High Court has exercised the revisional jurisdiction—which was not justified because the order of the learned Additional District Judge Muzaffarabad which was impugned before the High Court advances the cause of justice and equity. Held: that in such circumstances, the revisional jurisdiction should have been refused. Sardar Tabarik Ali & another v. Administrator Municipul Corporation & 6 others 2020 SCR 372(B)
  344. O.XVII rules 2 & 3 — Where two provisions of C.P.C. are applicable — The less stringent provision should be applied — The stringent provision of rules should not be applied unless the case does not admit of any other provision of C.P.C — When the Court found that the two provisions of C.P.C. can be applied then it is the duty of the Court to apply less stringent provision. Saeed Ahmad v. Habib Bank Ltd. & 2 others 2008 SCR 322 (A) 2006 SCR 280 rel.
  345. O. XVII R.3 — On two occasions the witnesses for the plaintiff were present but their statements were not recorded due to absence of the counsel for the defendants — Plaintiff was provided further opportunities and the last being on payment of costs — Neither costs were paid nor any witness was produced by him — Order of dismissing suit for non-production of evidence upheld. Muhammad Bashir v. Iqbal Begum and another 1997 SCR 175 (A)
  346. When the appellant (petitioner) was not present — Held: It was enjoined upon the High Court to dismiss the writ petition for default of appearance — But High Court dismissed the writ petition under Order XVII, rule 3 C.P.C. which is illegal — Writ petition restored — Case remanded. Saeed Ahmad v. Habib Bank Ltd. & 2 others 2008 SCR 322 (B)
  347. Order XVII, rule 3 CPC — Non-compliance of order and dismissal of suit on merits constitutes res judicata — Dismissal of suit on technical ground, res judicata is not attracted — Under Order XVII, rule 3 of the code, if a party fails to produce the evidence if ordered by the Court, then the Court may dismiss the suit on merits and the same may be treated as finally decided, in that case the rule of res judicata is attracted. Held: In the cases where the parties have not put their appearance, the written statements were not filed and issues were not framed, the dismissal on technical grounds cannot be termed as ‘finally decided’ and will not constitute res judicata — Whether a case is finally decided or not, can be judged from the fact that if detailed order on merits has been recorded, then it will be treated as finally decided and will constitute res judicata but if the suit is summarily dismissed for non-compliance of Court order on technical ground without touching the merits, it is not ‘case finally decided’ and will not constitute res judicata. Sakhiullah v. Habibullah 2011 SCR 133 (C)
  348. O. XVII, rule 3 — Expeditious disposal of the cases — the Court is equipped with the power to decide the suit under the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of CPC, if party failed to produce evidence or to cause attendance of his witnesses. The courts are very lenient and generous in granting adjournments, in general practice, but this leniency and generosity appears to have been misused for causing unnecessary delay in disposal of cases. Such state of affairs may justify the proverb “justice delayed justice denied” that is why general perception is “Diwani Zindagani” (دیوانی زندگانی). The courts have to keep the scale of justice even in exercising the discretionary powers while granting adjournments in the proceedings. For the ends of justice, expeditious disposal of the cases is call of the day. The courts should have to discourage all such practices and tactics of procrastination which ultimately result into miscarriage of justice. Zakia Begum v. Mushtaq Khan & 5 others 2014 SCR 658 (C)
  349. —Order XVII, rule 3—High Court view—order passed under O.XVII, r.3— appealable and even second appeal also competent—Held: High Court view is not consistent with statutory provisions–According to the stated facts an exparte decree was passed against the appellant who opted for filing application under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the same. The application was dismissed for want of proof and non-compliance of the trial Court’s order. In the dismissal order it is not mentioned that the same has been passed under the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, CPC, however, the learned High Court has treated it as an order passed under the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, CPC. It has been opined in the impugned judgment that the order passed under the provision of Order XVII, rules is appealable and even the second appeal is also competent. The view expressed in the impugned judgment is not consistent with the statutory provisions of Civil Procedure Code. The order passed under Order XVII, Rule 3 is not specifically categorised to be appealable. Hukam Dad v. Muhammad Tariq through L.H. & others 2017 SCR 252 (A) —Order XVII, Rule 3—order under this rule are of two types—under one type, second appeal also competent—under second type, only one appeal lies, second appeal not competent—So far as the observation of the High Court that the order has been passed under Order XVII, Rule 3, is concerned, such order may be of two types; one through which the suit is decreed by the trial Court. No doubt, against such right of section 96 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The second is mere an order not culminating into decree and falls in any of the provisions of Order XLIII read with section 104 of CPC. Against this order only one appeal is competent and no second appeal lies. As in this case, the learned trial Court has rejected the application for setting aside the decree and the order has not culminated into decree, hence, the same is appealable under the provisions of clause (C) of Rule 1, Order XLIII, CPC. Against the decision in first appeal, there is bar of further appeal as mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 104, CPC. Thus conclusion drawn by the learned High Court in this impugned judgment is not consistent with the statutory provisions. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. Hukam Dad v. Muhammad Tariq through L.H. & others 2017 SCR 252 (E)
  350. O.XVIII, rule.2 — statements and production of evidence — Under the spirit of provision of Civil Procedure Code, there is no concept to keep pending hearing of civil cases for an indefinite period and granting adjournments without any sufficient reason. The parties should be vigilant and be ready to produce evidence without any unnecessary delay. Zakia Begum v. Mushtaq Khan & 5 others 2014 SCR 658 (A)
  351. O. XVIII R.18 If the parties consented to the result of the spot inspection, they cannot subsequently turn round and reject the same. M. Maqsood & others v. M. Naib & 4 others 2002 SCR 223 (B)
  352. O. XX — The trial Court must record the finding on every issue so should the appellate Court do — However, if the case can effectively be decided on any one or more issues, without prejudicing or at the cost of other issues, the stringentness of O. XX C.P.C. does not apply. It would be a futile exercise to dilate upon all the issues when the case cannot proceed on any one of the issues going to the root of the case and particularly when it is an issue of the fact which is supported by the evidence. Syed Walayat H. Shah v. Syed Inayat Hussain Shah and 4 others 2007 SCR 403 (C)
  353. O. XX r. 4 (2) — A judgment is to satisfy the requirements of sub-rule(2) of rule 4 of O. XX — That besides concise statement of the case, the points for determination and decision thereon and reasons for such decision have to be recorded — Trial Court after receiving the written statement and replication was obliged to frame the issue in dispute and then decide the matter irrespective of fact whether a party absented or not. Ghulam Nabi v. Azad Kashmir Logging & Saw Mills Corporation & another 2007 SCR 381 (B)
  354. O. XX rr. 4 & 5 — Normally the Courts are required to record their findings on each and every issue and to advance their reasons in support of or against the issues but in our estimation these provisions of law strictly apply in the cases of contested suits and appeals. Habib Bank Ltd. V. Kh. Ali Muhammad 1995 SCR 113 (A)
  355. O. XX R. 5 — When issues are framed in a case finding or decision upon each separate issues is to be recorded — But it has very clearly been provided that if the Court is of the  opinion that finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for decision of the suit, recording of finding on all issues is not necessary — The decision or judgment recorded by all  Courts, other than Small Cause Courts, has to contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, decision thereupon and the reasons for such decisions — An exception has been provided to the rule by rule 5 which in cases where issues have been framed, the Court has to record its findings on each separate issue unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for decision of the suit. Said Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf & 2 others 2007 SCR 235 (B)
  356. Order XX, Rule 14 — sections 107 & 148 — powers which  vest in the Courts of original jurisdiction — the appellate Courts also vest with — enhancement of time for depositing decretal amount by appellate Court— under the provision of section 107, the powers vested in the Courts of original jurisdiction are also available with the appellate Courts — The time for depositing the decreetal amount is fixed by the Court under the provisions of Order XX, Rule 14, whereas according to the provisions of section 148, any period fixed or granted by the Court for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code including the period for depositing the decreetal amount can be enlarged from time to time. G. Rabani v. M. Fiaz 2016 SCR 295 (C) 1995 SCMR 105 rel. 
  357. —O. XX, Rule 14—Pre-emption decree—duty of Court to specify the day on or before which the purchase money shall be deposited. It is duty of Court that while passing the decree in pre-emption suit the Court concerned shall specify the day on or before which the purchase-money shall be deposited. The word ‘purchase-money’ denotes the amount which is determined or fixed by the Court while granting the decree. The price mentioned in sale deed as Rs. 50,000/-, whereas plaintiff alleged that actual paid price was Rs. 35,000/-. The trial court dismissed plaint and decided the issue regarding quantum of price against the plaintiff– -First Appellate Court also dismissed appeal—High Court accepted appeal of plaintiff/respondent but has not determined the purchase money not specified the day on or before which the purchase money shall be deposited—requirement of Order XX, rule 14 of CPC, not fulfilled. Decree inconsistent with statutory provisions of Order XX, rule 14 CPC. Case remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh. Abdul Waheed Khan vs Mir Akbar Khan & others 2018 SCR 137 (B)
  358. — Order XXIII—rule 1 & 2—an application for withdrawal of suit with permission to file fresh one is indivisible—it is either to be allowed as a whole or dismissed as such—it cannot be broken in parts so as to allow withdrawal and disallow to file a fresh suit.      Raja Shoukat Hayat & Co. Versus Ch. Muhammad Sadiq & Co. 2021 SCR 710 (B) 1997 SCR 67 & 1970 SCMR 141 rel.
  359. R. 30 has to be read along with r. 32 which provides as to what a judgement may direct — The right of appellate Court is the same which has been provided under Order XX r. 5 C.P.C. Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Riyasat & 8 others 2008 SCR 308 (C)
  360. Ord. XX R. 14 — This is the basic principle of law that a litigant should not be made to suffer for any mistake of the Court or clerk of the Court. Muhammad Iqbal v. Anwaar Anwar 1996 SCR 293 (B) 1983 CLC 1912 relied.
  361. O. XX, R. 14 — Decree in pre-emption suit — Rule postulated — When the Court passes a decree for pre-emption in respect of sale of a particular property and the amount has not been paid, the Court shall specify a day on or before which the purchase money shall be so paid — After the payment has been made, the defendant shall deliver the possession of property to the plaintiff and title of plaintiff shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment — The rule so postulates that if purchase money and the costs are not to paid, the suit shall be dismissed with costs — The title in property passes to the plaintiff, decree-holder, on the payment of decretal amount — Where the requirements of the said rule have been complied with by the plaintiff, irrespective of fact whether possession was delivered to him or not, title in property would vest in plaintiff and he would be owner of land in question — The pre-emptor/decree-holder becomes the owner of the property from the date of payment of pre-emption money. Jalal-ud-Din v. Rozman 2013 SCR 29 (A)
  362. O. XX, R. 14 — See Specific Relief Act, 1877, S.8 Jalal-ud-Din v. Mst. Rozman 2013 SCR 29 (B)
  363. Order XX, Rule 14 of C.P.C — Court is competent to fix the time for depositing the decretal amount —  section 148 — period of depositing can be extended — under the provisions of Order XX, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, the time for depositing the decretal amount is fixed by the Court and according to the provisions of section 148, C.P.C., any period fixed or granted by the Court for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code including the period for depositing the decretal amount can be enlarged from time to time. G. Rabani v. M. Fiaz 2015 SCR 317 (D) 1995 SCMR 105 rel.
  364. O. XX, R. 40 — Pre-emption suit — Appellant failed to comply with direction of Court while not depositing decretal amount within stipulated period — Such failure had resulted into dismissal of pre-emption suit — Concurrent findings recorded by Courts below — Validity — Issue had been properly attended by High Court as well as District Judge and after applying their judicious mind had given well-reasoned concurrent findings — No illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments/decrees passed by Courts below — Civil appeal dismissed. PREMPTION — (Deposit of decretal amount)
  365. [Appellant could not deposit decretal amount within stipulated period. Courts below dismissed suit for pre-emption. Supreme Court dismissed appeal]. Zia-ul-Haq v. Umar hayat and 3 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 165  Ref. 2004 SCR 510, 2005 SCR 225, 2010 SCR 250.
  366. O. 21 R. 16 — Original decree holder can move an application for execution of decree — The transferee’s right to execute the decree is not recognized by the Government after a decree holder transfers his rights to some other person, that person has to apply in the Court u/s 146 of C.P.C. to substitute his name in place of decree-holder and until that procedure is adopted by the transferee, the transferor is not debarred from the execution of the decree which originally exists in his name. Muhammad Yusuf & 3 others v. Walayat Khan and 17 others 2004 SCR 522 (A) A.I.R. (32) 1945 Oudh 225, A.I.R.1933 Sind 119, A.I.R.(35) 1948 Oudh 176 rel.
  367. O. XXI R.24 — Reveals that when preliminary measures required by foregoing rules have been taken, it is mandatory for the Court to issue a process for execution of decree. Azmat Bi & another v. Muhammad Laal 2008 SCR 300 (A)
  368. — Order XXI, Rules 89 & 90 — execution of decree — auction for sale of property — remedy for person affected by such sale — any person whose interests are affected by the sale of immovable property sold in execution of a decree, may apply to the executing Court to set-aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it — if said application is disallowed the said order is appealable u/o XLIII, Rule 1 (J) Muhammad Ilyas & others vs Azad Govt. & others 2024 SCR 51 (A&B)
  369. لاء ریفارمز آرڈیننس   1972— ترمیممجموعہ ضابطہ دیوانی — ریاست آزاد جموں و کشمیر میں اطلاق ازمورخہ 2003۔3۔5 — حکم XXII—  ترمیم شدہ قواعد پر اُن کی روح و منشاء کے مطابق عمل نہ کرنے کی وجہ سے فراہمی انصاف میں غیر ضروری تاخیر— عدالت کے  مشاہدہ میں آیا ہے کہ محض تقرری قائمقامان متوفی فریق کے حوالہ سے فریقین کو ابتدائی عدالت سے عدالت العظمٰی تک دہائیوں کی تکلیف دہ مقدمہ بازی کے عمل سے گزرنا پڑتا ہے۔ جبکہ مورخہ 2003۔03۔05 سے ترمیم شدہ نافذ العمل قواعد کے مطابق اس قسم کے معاملات کے حوالہ سے فریقین کو مقدمہ بازی میں الجھانا قانون کی منشاء کے خلاف ہی نہ ہے بلکہ نظام فراہمی انصاف دیوانی کے حوالے سے عدالتی نظام کے لیے سوالیہ نشان بھی ہے۔ ترمیم شدہ قواعد کے تحت اب کوئی مقدمہ یا اپیل محض کسی فریق کی وفات  اور عدم تقرری قائمقامان کی بناء پر ساقط نہیں ہو سکتا اور نہ ہی یہ وجہ تاخیر اور غیر ضروری مقدمہ بازی کا سبب بننی چاہیے۔ اسد وغیرہ  بنام زاہدہ بیگم وغیرہ(ت)2016 SCR 1522  
  370. مجموعہ ضابطہ دیوانی(اختیار کرنے ترامیم) ایکٹ 2003 لاء ریفارمز آرڈیننس 1972— اطلاق/ موثر بر آزاد جموں و کشمیر— از مورخہ 2003۔3۔5— حکم  XXII — مجموعہ ضابطہ دیوانی — تقرری قائمقامان متوفی فریق — استدلال وکیل اپیلانٹس — کہ دعویٰ قبل از نفاذ (2003۔3۔5) ترمیم شدہ مجموعہ ضابطہ دیوانی دائر ہوا ہے, ضابطہ دیوانی میں جو ترامیم کی گئی ہیں اُن کا اطلاق موثر بہ ماضی نہ ہوتا ہے اورنہ ہی ان ترامیم کو موثر بماضی قرار دینے کی کوئی قانونی شق موجود ہے۔ معاملہ زیر نزاع میں ترمیم شدہ قواعد کا اطلاق نہ ہوتا ہے ۔تقرری قائمقامان متوفی فریق  مقدمہ  کے حوالہ سے دائری دعویٰ کی تاریخ سے اسقاط دعویٰ/اپیل کا تعین ہو گا—قرار دیا گیا — واقعات اور قانونی دلائل کے تجزیہ کے بعد یہ قرار دینے میں کوئی امر مانع نہ ہے کہ مورخہ 2003۔3۔5 جب کہ ترمیم شدہ مجموعہ ضابطہ دیوانی ضابطہ دیوانی کا اطلاق آزاد جموں و کشمیر میں کیا گیا، کے بعد کسی فریق کی وفات کی بناء پر مقدمہ یا اپیل کو از خود ساقط قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا، اس طرح اپیلانٹس کا استدلال قابل پزیرائی نہ ہے۔ جو کہ مستردد کیا جاتا ہے۔ اسد وغیرہ  بنام زاہدہ بیگم وغیرہ(ب)2016 SCR 1522  PLD 1986 SC 169, 2009 SCR 27 & PLD 1983 SC 62 ref. & discussed
  371. O. 22, R.3 — If the legal representatives of a deceased party are brought on record in appellate or revisional Court-fresh application not necessary when case remanded to High Court. S. Shabir Shah Hussain Shah and others v. Ghulam Akram and others 1992 SCR 81 (A)
  372. O. XXII rule 3(2) apply to the present case — If at all the legal representatives have not been brought on record it will not make any difference in the light of the amended provision of C.P.C. — Held: No order of dismissal of appeal on account of abatement was passed by the District Judge, the learned Judge of the High Court has wrongly held that the suit stood abated automatically on account of abatement. Mst. Hameeda Begum v. Mazhar H. and others 2009 SCR 27 (F)
  373. O. XII R.3(2) — Automatic abatement of appeal — effect of — Order XXII rule 3(2) — Adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 05-03-2003 — No powers for dismissal of any cause on account of abatement were available to the Courts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir therefore, no question arises for dismissal of appeal on account of abatement automatically. Mst. Hameeda Begum and another v. Mazhar Hussain and 40 others 2009 SCR 27 (G)
  374. O. XXII, R. 3(2) — Impleadment of legal heirs/representatives of the deceased party — Absence of application — Question of abatement — Amended rule — Through the said amendment, the powers of dismissal of suit on account of abatement have been taken away and it has been land down in said rule that if no application is moved for impleading legal representatives, it shall make no difference if the right of sue survivers. Abdul Shakoor v. M. Rafique 2013 SCR  771 (A
  375. O. XXII, R. 3(2) — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Abdul Shakoor v. Muhammad Rafique and 8 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 771 (B)
  376. Order XXII R. 4 whether the absence of knowledge of death has been proved satisfactorily by a party-seeking to bring the legal representative on the record after expiry of period of limitation. It depends upon the circumstance of each case. Mango v. Mst. Janat Bibi 1994 SCR 1 (A)
  377. O. XXII rule 4 applies in a case where defendant dies during the pendency of a suit and not in a case where a defendant was already dead at the time of institution of the suit — A decree passed in a case where the defendant was dead would definitely be a nullity in the eye of law. Tazeem Bibi & another v. Muhammad Khalid & 10 others 2005 SCR 347 (A)
  378. حکمXXII  ، قاعدہ 11— اطلاق برکارروائی اپیل بصورت وفات اپیلانٹ—درخواست تقرری قائمقامان—ذمہ داری بر فریق اپیلانٹ یا رسپانڈنٹ—قرار دیا گیا—اپیلانٹ کے متوفی ہونے کی صورت میں درخواست تقرری قائمقامان کی ذمہ داری دیگر فریق اپیلانٹ یا واحد اپیلانٹ کی صورت میں اسکے قائمقامان پر عائد ہوتی ہے ۔ نہ کہ رسپانڈنٹ کی ذمہ داری ہے۔ اسد وغیرہ  بنام زاہدہ بیگم وغیرہ(پ)2016 SCR 1522  
  379. O. XXIII, R. 1 — Withdrawal of earlier suit after filing subsequent suit — Principle of law — If a suit is already pending and after filing of subsequent suit, the first suit is withdrawn, in such case, the said provision, precluding the plaintiff from instituting the fresh suit is not applicable. Shabina Kousar v. Nargis Khatoon and 11 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 866 (A) Overruled: 2001 SCR 312, PLD 2001 SC AJK 30.
  380. O. XXIII, R. 1 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Shabina Kousar v. Nargis Khatoon and 11 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 866 (B)
  381. Order XXIII, rule 1 — withdrawal of suit — permission to file fresh — satisfaction of Court — statutory provision clearly speaks that it is the satisfaction of the Court that the suit must fail by reason of formal defect or any other sufficient ground to allow the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit — application for withdrawal cannot be rejected merely on the ground of failure of applicant to point out formal defect in the suit. Held: court can allow withdrawal of suit for the reason of formal defect or for any other sufficient ground.  Further held: the power of withdrawal even can be exercised by the Court unilaterally at the instance of one of the parties — further held: the powers to allow withdrawal lies with the Court and it does not depend upon the wishes and whims of the parties. Somia Riaz v. Ammara Shahnawaz & 12 others 2014 SCR 251 (A) 2003 SMR 456 ref.
  382. — order XXIII, rule 1 — withdrawal of suit — institution of fresh suit — conditions for withdrawal can be allowed — if the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect and there are other sufficient grounds for allowing plaintiff to institute fresh suit on a subject matter or a part of claim — without passing of formal order for permission to file fresh suit, it cannot be presumed mechanically that permission to file fresh suit has been granted — when a plaintiff once institutes a suit and thereby avails the remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without permission to institute fresh suit — whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right, will lose it — in order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of Court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason, the Code insists that he should obtain permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds u/O XXIII, Rule 1 (2) — M/s Sardar Ilyas Alam versus Secretary Public Works Dept. & 12 others 2023 SCR 1137 (B)
  383. — order XXIII, rule 1 — section 11 — withdrawal of suit — principle of res-judicata — the principle lying under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, is rounded on public policy but it is not the same as the rule of res-judicata — the rule of res-judicata applies to a case where the suit or on issue has already been heard and finally decided by a Court — in the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without permission of the Court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudication of a suit, yet a second suit will not lie when the first suit is withdrawn without permission of Court, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. M/s Sardar Ilyas Alam versus Secretary Public Works Dept. & 12 others 2023 SCR 1137 (C)
  384. O. XXIII rules 1 and 2 — After granting permission to withdraw a writ petition there was no occasion to deal with the merits of the case. Bashir Ahmed Kh. v. Azad Govt. 1997 SCR 67 (A)
  385. O. XXIII rules 1 and 2 — The Court cannot withhold the permission to bring fresh suit while allowing withdrawal of the suit — The Court can either accept or reject both the prayers — Thus if it allows the withdrawal of the suit but rejects the prayer for filing the fresh suit, the order would be beyond its jurisdiction and subsequent suit would not be barred. Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Azad Govt. and another 1997 SCR 67 (B)
  386. O. XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2 — Withdrawal of suit — Scope — Plaintiff under O. XXIII, R.I, C.P.C., could at any time withdraw from the suit without prior permission of the court, but if he wanted to file a fresh suit, he had to make an application under R. 2 of O. XXIII, C.P.C. for withdrawal of the same on the ground of some formal defect; or any other error — Purpose of R. 2 of O. XXIII, C.P.C. was to prevent the plaintiff from filing fresh suit after having failed to conduct the first one with care and diligence — Plaintiff had a right to withdraw a suit whenever he desired, but he could not file fresh suit on the same subject, without permission of the court. M. Maqbool v. M. Shafi 2012 SCR 105  Karamat Ali Khan and another v. Sardar Ali and 29 others PLD 2001 SC (AJ&K) 30 ref.
  387. O. XXIII — Plain reading of Order shows that sub-rules (1) contemplates withdrawal of suit which can be done at any time without prior permission of the Court but under sub-rule(2) the plaintiff may on application withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit — Where he does not desire to institute a fresh suit he can withdraw his suit and permission to with draw is not necessary — The object of rule is to prevent a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit after having failed to conduct the first one with care and diligence — Plaintiff has the right to withdraw his suit whenever he desires but he cannot file a fresh suit on the same subject matter unless a permission is sought for filing the fresh suit. Karamat Ali Khan v. Sardar Ali and others 2001 SCR 312 (A)
  388. Appeal — Right of — The appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the notification, during the pendency of the case, due to out of Court settlement of the dispute between the appellant and the answering respondent — The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed as having been withdrawn — After the withdrawal of the writ petition, the finality was attached to the Government notification dated 10-7-1998 and due to provision of Order XXIII, rules 1 & 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has no locus-standi to file the instant appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment of the High Court. Muhammad Aziz Khan v. United Kashmir Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 17-miles & 6 others 2003 SCR 363 (A)
  389. Suit filed on 13.10.1997 — Dismissed by trial Court on 16.2.2000, restore. Held: That it was pending at the time of withdrawal of earlier suit by respondent — Provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code not attracted. M. Bashir Khan v. M. Iqbal 2005 SCR 353 (D)
  390. The provisions of Order XXIII R. 1 (3) cannot be defeated by instituting fresh suit before withdrawing the previously filed suit. Karamat Ali Khan v. Sardar Ali 2001 SCR 312 (D)
  391. O. XXIII Rule 3 — Compromise — It is a well settled principle of law that while passing a compromise decree, the Court does not deal with the merits of a suit; it decides the same on the basis of compromise — Question of jurisdiction was for the first time raised by the respondent in this Court — The authority cited by the learned counsel for the respondent that legal question can be raised for the first time in this Court was in cases where there was no compromise and suits were decided on merits — The Court was bound to pass decree on the basis of the same under sub-rule 3 of order XXIII C.P.C.; once It is found to the satisfaction of  the Court that the matter has been adjusted through a legal compromise the Court is bound to record the same and to pass a decree on its basis. Shaukat Habib & 5 others v. Muhammad Basher & another 2002 SCR 212 (A)
  392. In case of passing an order on the basis of compromise, it is incumbent upon the Court to record the compromise under r. 3 of O. XXIII. Andleeb Sahir Butt v. Naveed Hussain 2000 SCR 57 (C)
  393. The identity of causes of action and of the parties, besides the relief sought in two suits is different — Bar contained in Order XXIII R.3 of the Code does not apply. M. Bashir Khan v. M. Iqbal & 12 others 2005 SCR 353 (B) AIR 1928 All.689, AIR 1959 Cal. 715, AIR 1970 SC 987.rel.
  394. O. XXIII rules 1, 2 & 3 — O. XXIII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits withdrawal of suits — Sub-rule (1)of rule 1 of the aforesaid order contemplates withdrawal of the suits which can be done at any time without prior permission of the Court but under sub-rule (2) of the said order, the plaintiff may, on an application, withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit, he can withdraw his suit and permission to withdraw is not necessary but where application for withdrawal has been filed, the Court cannot decide the suit on merits — The object of the rules is to prevent a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit after having failed to conduct the first one with care and diligence — Further in permitting a fresh suit, the rule seeks to prevent technicalities from defeating justice — The plaintiff has the right to withdraw his suit whenever he desires but cannot file a fresh suit on the same subject matter. Muhammad Aziz Khan v. United Kashmir Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 17-miles & 6 others 2003 SCR 363 (D)
  395. O. XXIII R. 1(1)(2)(3) — Makes three sentences  particularly prominent — In sub rule (1) the words “at any time after the institution of a suit” in sub-rule 2(B) the words “for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit” and in sub-rule (3) the words “precluded from instituting any fresh suit” — When all these sentences are read toghter, it is unequivocally revealed that only that fresh suit is barred which is filed after withdrawal of earlier suit, not the one which is filed and was pending at the time of filing the fresh suit. M. Bashir Khan v. M. Iqbal 2005 SCR 353 (A)
  396. — Order XXIII sub-rule 2 (a) and (b)—application for withdrawal of suit with the permission to file fresh—ingredients of– the test for exercise of discretion by the Court for allowing depends upon  ‘satisfaction of Court’—to make the Court to reach at certain level of ‘satisfaction’ so that it may allow to withdraw and file fresh cause, the plaintiff must bring forth  material before Court– such permission cannot be allowed as a matter of routine or right–plaintiff must mention in  clear terms to the effect that  ‘which are  formal defects on reason of which the suit must fail, or what are some other grounds, available with plaintiff to allow as such. Raja Shoukat Hayat & Co. Versus Ch. Muhammad Sadiq & Co. 2021 SCR 710 (A) 2013 SCMR 464 rel.
  397. —Order XXIII, Rule, 2 and 3—withdrawal of earlier suit after filing subsequent—parties may withdraw earlier suit after filing subsequent suit. The Court held: it is correct that previous suit was admittedly pending in respect of same suit land and on the same cause of action when the suit was withdrawn but before withdrawing the suit, subsequent suit was filed before the same Court in respect of same land on the same cause of action. The effect of withdrawal of the previous suit without permission of the Court during pendency of subsequent one, on the same subject-matter, was examined by this Court in the case reported as Shabina Kausar vis Nargis Khatoon & 11 others [2013 SCR 866]. After survey of the case-law and considering the provisions of Order XXIII, sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 1, it has been finally opined in para 10 and 11 of the report as under:- “10. The collective wisdom of all the Courts of sub-continent is supported to the principle of law laid down in Muhammad Bashir Khan’s case [PLJ 2005 SC (AJ&K) 89. Therefore, we have paid our utmost attention and also taken into consideration the relevant statutory provisions of Civil Procedure Code but could not succeed to find out any support in favour of the view adopted in Karamat Ali Khan’s case. The consensus of the legend jurists of the sub-continent is clear that if a suit is already pending and after filing of subsequent suit, the first suit is withdrawn, in such case, the provision of sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII, CPC, precluding the plaintiff from instituting fresh suit is not applicable. This view appears to be more logical and just. Even otherwise, to non-suit a party is clear penalty and for imposing such penalty, there must be some clear expressed statutory provision. Thus, in absence of any clear statutory provision, a party cannot be non-suited on presumptive nonspeaking wisdom of the legislature by any stretch of imagination or interpretation of statute. 11. So far as the other contentions of learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants have got no cause of action or question of limitation etc, are concerned, they are at liberty to raise all these defences before the trial Court. Mere non attraction of bar provided in sub-rule (3), rule 1 of Order XXIII, CPC, does not mean that all other legal defences of the defendants have been vanished. Muhammad Ejaz v. Ch. Khadim Hussain & others  2017 SCR  1070
  398. –Order XXIII, rule 3—compromise of suit—procedure of–Court is bound to record compromise— on the date of dismissal of suit the plaintiff was not even present in the Court–the trial Court could have dismissed the suit for want of prosecution— in absence of plaintiff, the dismissal of suit on the basis of compromise without recording the statement of plaintiff not justified. Muhammad Najeeb Raja v.               Gulfraz Khan & others 2022 SCR 72 (A)
  399. O. XXVI R. 9 — This is settled principle of law that Commission under Order 26. R. 9 can be appointed, inter alia for local enquiry so as to remove any ambiguity in the evidence or for elucidating the evidence already produced by the parties on the record and not for collecting fresh evidence — Held: It is not necessary in the instant case as to whether the dismissed of the previous application for appointment of Commission by the High Court would create a bar to the plaintiff/appellant for appointing a Commission or not — As both the Courts below expressed the view that this is not a proper case in which Commission should be appointed at this belated stage, there is no reason to differ with the Courts below in rejecting the prayer for the appointment of a Commission, especially so when the discretion exercised is not shown to be preverse or violative of settled principles of law on the subject. M. Sharif v. Fazal Ahmed 1995 SCR 369 (A & B)
  400. —Order XXVI—Rule. 9—Local Commission—principle for appointment of—-It is Court to decided appointment of—local commission cannot be appointed in routine—Court may appoint local commission to get certain explanation and clarification regarding the matter in confusion—when it is useful for proper appreciation of evidence— It may be observed here that under the provisions of Order XXVI, rule 9, C.P.C., the Court may appoint a commission where the Court deems that the local investigation is necessary and useful for proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the parties. It is for the Court to decide the necessity of a local investigation as the local commission is appointed only to get certain explanation and clarification regarding the matter in confusion and where there is no such ambiguity or confusion then local commission cannot be appointed just in routine. Zain-ul-Hussain Rizvi vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 553 (A)
  401. Order XXVI, Rule 10 —report of the Commission — it was enjoined upon the High Court to hear the parties and also to call the Commission for examination in person and thereafter such report   should  have      become               the         part        of    evidence—without complying with  the  statutory requirement,  the  appeal  has  been decided while relying upon the report of the Commission which is not a proper course. Qazi Shujaat Hussain vs Adil Saleem Mughal & others 2018 SCR 897 (A)
  402. —Order XXIX, Rule 1, CPC—Suits by or against Corporations—subscription and verification by pleader—Held: NJHPC, is a private company and in view of provisions of Order XXIX, rule 1, CPC, the person instituting legal proceedings on behalf of the company should be authorized through a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in a meeting convened for such purpose. Whereas, in the instant case, no such resolution is available. Petition for leave to appeal were filed without any authorization. Neelum Jhelum Hydro Project  v. Abdul Hameed & 12 others 2022 SCR 1358(A) Neelum Jehlum Hydro Electric Project v. Inhabitants of village Malsi Thotta, Civil Appeal No. 299 of2020, decided on 09.11.2020. rel.
  403. Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 — when the Court is satisfied that the defendant may defeat the decree by disposing off the whole or any part of the property before passing of the decree which may be passed against him or  he may remove the same from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, then the Court may direct the defendant to furnish security for the amount which the Court deems proper — The trial Court has power to order for security and attachment of the property subject to the satisfaction and the satisfaction is from an affidavit or otherwise. Chief Engineer & SDF&KF others v. M/S Recent Construction Company & others 2015 SCR 1201 (D)
  404. Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 & Order XVIII, Rule 7 — Argument that Court may attach the property under order XVIII, Rule 7 instead of furnishing security — held: not tenable — because there is no property of defendant in jurisdiction of the Court and if security is not furnished and ultimately the suit is decreed, it would be difficult to recover the decretal amount. Chief Engineer & SDF&KF others v. M/S Recent Construction Company & others 2015 SCR 1201 (E) PLD 1962 SC 119 &1992 CLC 1644 rel.
  405. –Order XXXIX—Interim injunction—vacation of–construction at own risk. See Muhammad Sajawal v. Mohammad Sudheer & others 2022 SCR 488 (B)
  406. O. 39 R. 1 — Apart from a prima facie case the principle of balance of convenience and irreparable loss likely to cause if the stay order is not issued are of paramount consideration while issuing or refusing stay order. Muhammad Anwar v. Raja Khalil 1992 SCR 260 (A)
  407. O. 39 R. 1 — It is always desirable that the question of the interim relief is decided after hearing the opposite party. Muhammad Anwar v. Raja Khalil 1992 SCR 260 (B)
  408. O. XXXIX, rules 1&2 — Temporary injunction — Issuance of — Condition for — Held: Exclude the scope of demanding security bond from a party to meet the liability which is ultimately settled in shape of decree. Taufique Qadir v. Khalil-ur-Rehman & another 2001 SCR 39 (A)
  409. Order XXXIX rules. 1&2 — Temporary injunction — Issuance of — At this stage it cannot be definitely ascertained as to whether the disputed land which is in the possession of Taufique Qadir over which he has raised construction is different from the one which was transferred to Khalil-ur-Rehman through sale – deed — This would be decided by the trial Court at proper stage. Taufique Qadir v. Khalil-ur-Rehman & another 2001 SCR 39 (B)
  410. Order XXXIX rules 1&2 — Temporary injunction — Issuance of — Condition for — Contention that the High Court was not legally justified to direct appellant for giving undertaking that he would not claim any compensation in case the suit of Khalil-ur-Rehman  is decreed — Is not tenable. Taufique Qadir v. Khalil-ur-Rehman & another 2001 SCR 39 (C)
  411. O. 39 rules 1 & 2 — Stay order is issued provided the conditions of, prima facie case; the irreparable loss; and the balance of convenience are in favour of the applicant. Karamatullah v. Liaquat Ali 2003 SCR 138 (B)
  412. O. XXXIX rules 1 and 2 — The general principles governing the issuance of stay order in a civil suit, appeal or a writ are as under:- “The prima facie existence of right in the applicant and its infringement by respondent —The irreparable damage or injury will accrue to the applicant if the injunction is not granted —The inconvenience which the applicant will undergo from withholding the injunction will comparatively greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it”. Kaneez Akhtar v. Azad Govt. & 10 others 2004 SCR 318 (A)
  413. O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 & O. XLI, R. 27 — Specific Relief Act, (1 of 1877), S. 54 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42(12) — Grant of stay order — Scope — Violation of stay order — Effect — Stay order was granted restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land during pendency of suit — Plaintiff moved an application for violation of stay order — Trial Court dismissed said application on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the alleged violation — Appellate Court below dismissed appeal filed against order of the Trial Court, High Court also dismissed order of Appellate Court below — Claim of the plaintiffs was that stay order was served upon the defendants, but despite that the defendants had violated the stay order — Plaintiffs were provided ample opportunity to prove their case, but they failed to prove that stay order was issued and served upon the defendants — Person who disobeyed the stay order could be proceeded against for contempt and action could also be taken against him under O. XXXIX, R. 2, C.P.C. — Stay order would become operative, the moment it was served upon defendant; and he was made aware of the order — Plaintiffs were supposed to prove from the record that the stay order was served upon the defendants — Plaintiffs having failed to prove that fact; courts below were justified in dismissing the application of the plaintiffs — Plaintiffs had to prove their case through reliable evidence in the Trial Court, if they failed to produce any document in the Trial Court, then during pendency of appeal, they had an opportunity to move application under O. XLI, R. 27, C.P.C. for producing the document as an additional evidence, but that had not been done in the case — No illegality was found in the judgment in the High Court — No legal question being involved in the petition for leave to appeal, same could not be granted. Abdul Ghafoor and 4 others v. Muhammad Azam and another 2012 SCR 65
  414. O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 — Specific Relief Act, 1877, S. 54 — Suit for perpetual injunction — Use of path — Matter of stay — Courts below declired to grant interim relief — If was contended that path in question was in ownership of appellants/plaintiffs which they had left for their own use and respondents-defendants had no right and interest in the land and the passage — Ascertainment of record —  Plaintiffs-appellants had constructed three stairs in said path which the plaintiff claimed as their private path while defendant-respondent claimed it as a public way and they were using the same since long — Held: Appellants were successful in establishing a good prima facie arguable case — If respondents were successful in demolishing stairs constructed by plaintiffs and ultimately their suit was decreed, then irreparable loss would be caused to plaintiffs and they would also suffer inconvenience — Similarly, if interim injunction was issued to the effect that defendants would refrain from using said path and ultimately suit was dismissed they would suffer an irreparable loss — Object and purpose of interim relief is always to maintain the status-quo of suit land and not to create a different and new situation than what it was existing at time of filing the suit — Respondents would refrain from removing any construction raised by plaintiffs/appellants, in the path in dispute, however, they would be entitled to use said path till disposal of suit — Appeal was partially allowed by Supreme Court. STAY order — (Use of path)
  415. In suit for perpetual injunction dispute was with regard to path. Application for temporary injunction was dismissed by Courts below. Appeal was partly allowed by Supreme Court. Qaiser Sadiq and another v. Shahroom and 4 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 61 (C)
  416. O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 — Issuance of temporary injunction — Ingredients — For issuance of stay order the first ingredient is that there must be a prima facie arguable case in favour of the party who wants the interim relief and if a party is successful in establishing good prima facie arguable case, then other two ingredients i.e. irreparable loss and balance of convenience are to be looked into — At the time of issuance of stay order the plaintiff has only to show that he has good prima facie arguable case and the raised a fair question as to existence of his right and till disposal of the case he is entitled for preservation of status-quo — If the plaintiff established a prima facie arguable case, then the Court has to look into the balance of convenience and the balance of convenience means that if any injunction is not granted and the suit is ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiff, the inconvenience caused to have shall be greater than that which shall be caused to the defendant if the injunction is granted and the suit is ultimately dismissed. Qaiser Sadiq and another v. Shahroom and 4 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 61 (B)
  417. Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 — issuance of temporary injunction — necessary ingredients — Held: prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, are required to be proved seeking the interim relief.  Paramount consideration for the Court is that the applicant has good prima facie case — If the party fails to establish a good prima facie case, then the other two elements would be irrelevant to take into consideration. M. Lal & others v. A. Majeed & others 2014 SCR 430 (A)
  418. Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 — interim injunctions — necessary ingredients for issuance of stay order; (i) a good prima facie arguable case; (ii) irreparable loss which a party will suffer if stay order is not issued or issued and; (iii) balance of convenience, if a good prima facie arguable case is made out by a party then the question of irreparable loss has to be considered by the Court.  Irreparable loss means the loss which will be suffered by a party if a stay order is issued or not issued. Ali Shan v. M.D.A. & 18 others 2014 SCR 535 (B) 2014 SCR 318 ref.
  419. O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 & 4 — Issuance or vacation of stay order — Necessary ingredients — For issuance or vacation of a stay order, three necessary ingredients had to be considered; prima facie cases; balance of convenience and irreparable loss — Plaintiff should not necessarily prove that he would succeed in the case in all circumstances, but he had to establish only a prima facie case — If a prima facie case was established, then the other two ingredients had to be seen. Muhammad Qasim v. Razia Begum 2012 SCR 350 (A)
  420. O. XXXIX, Rr. 1,2 & 4 — Specific Act (1 of 1877), S. 42 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Khalsa Waste Land as Shamilat Deh Act, 1966, Ss. 5 & 9 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42 — Suit for perpetual injunction — Grant or vacation of stay order — Trial Court vacated the stay order on the ground that previous suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the shamilat land was reserved for common purpose and High Court restored the said judgment — High Court had not considered the necessary ingredients for issuance of stay order — Plaintiff from the record appeared to be in possession of disputed survey numbers of land and was yet to be established, whether said survey number fell in shamilat deh reserved for common purpose or not — Till that time, a good prima facie arguable case appeared to exist in favour of the plaintiff — When the plaintiff had got a good prima facie arguable case, then the other two necessary ingredient, i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss, had to be seen — Where a good prima facie case was established by the plaintiff, if in such an eventuality, he would be evicted from land in dispute, irreparable loss would occur to him — Plaintiff being in possession of land, the balance of convenience also appeared in his favour and was entitled to remain in possession — Possession of plaintiff was proved on record — Judgment of High Court was set aside and that of Appellate Court below was restored. M. Qasim v. Razia Begum 2012 SCR 350 (B, C & D)
  421. O. XL — Appointment of receiver-receiver can be appointed where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. D.F.O. Muzaffarabad 1994 SCR 44 (C)
  422. O. XL, R. 1 — See Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 94. Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Rahim Khan 2012 SCR 156 (B)
  423. Order 40 Rule 1 — Attachment of proceedings — Civil Court is vested with wide powers to attach the suit property and to preserve it from the danger of being wasted or alienated but this power is to be sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. The appoint of receiver has been recognized as one of the harshest remedy allowable under the Code and it is allowed only in very exceptional cases. The party seeking appointment of receiver, therefore, has to show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action. M. Siddique v. M. Latif and others 1996 SCR 299 (A)
  424. Order XLI, R. 1 — Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), Ss.26(2) & 53 — Acquisition of land — Award of compensation — Cross references were filed by parties before District Judge against order of Collector, Land Acquisition whereby amount of compensation of acquired land was determined — Authority filed appeal before High Court against order passed by Distt. Judge on reference which appeal was objected to by respondents on ground that same was incompetent as it did not accompany copies of decree sheet of District Judge — High Court upheld said objection and dismissed appeals observing that as copies of decree-sheet did not accompany memos of appeals as envisaged under O. XLI, rule 1 C.P.C. , appeals were not properly filed — Validity — Memorandum of appeals filed by appellant before High Court were accompanied by the copy of award made by District Judge and under section 26(2) of Land Acquisition Act ,1894, award given by District Judge having been deemed to be a “decree”, it was not necessary to file copies of decree-sheet with memo of appeals irrespective  of the fact that a formal decree-sheet was drawn by District Judge — Memorandum of appeals duly accompanied by copy of award made by District Judge, having been properly filed, order of High Court in dismissing appeals as being incompetent due to non-filing of decree-sheet, was set aside by Supreme Court remanding case to High Court to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties. Military Estate Officer and others v. M. Bashir & 6 others 2000 SCR 395 (A, B, C, & D)  Narsingh v. Secretary of Srtate AIR 1928 Lah.263; Nur Din v.Secretary of State AIR 1927 Lah.49; M.Dodla Malliah and others v. The State of Andh. Pra. AIR 1964 Andh.Pra.216 and Dilawar Hussain v. The Province of Sind PLD 1953 Kar. 578 ref.
  425. Order XLI Rule 1 — It is mandatory for the appellant to file a copy of the decree sheet alongwith the memorandum of appeal; non-filing of the copy cannot be condoned by the Court. Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Hamid and 33 others 2000 SCR 419 (B)
  426. Order XLI Rule 1 — The requirement of law is that the memorandum of appeal in the High Court must be accompanied by three document viz-copies of the judgment and decree appealed from and copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance, however, a discretion is vested in the Court to dispense with the copy of the judgment of either of the trial Court or the appellate Court. Azad Govt. and 5 others v. Sajjad Ali Gillani & another 2001 SCR 134 (A)
  427. Order XLI Rule 1 — The requirement of law is that the memorandum of appeal before the High Court shall be accompanied by a certified copy of judgment and decree appealed from and the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court. Ibarat  H. v. Mir Afzal Khan 2001 SCR 495 (A)
  428. Order XLI Rule I — Filing of appeal — Order XLI Rule I, CPC provides that memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied with the copy of decree sheet appealed from with the judgment on which it is founded. This provision has been interpreted in number of cases that copy of judgment can be dispensed with by the Court but copy of decree sheet cannot be condoned by the Court. Rashida Bibi v. Muhammad Nazir & another 2010 SCR 369 (A)
  429. Order XLI, Rule 1— sections 96 to 99 — Appeals under Sections 96 to 99, CPC, are filed under Order XLI, Rule 1, CPC — In the light of provisions of Section 96, the persons who are parties in the suit and who are adversely affected by the decree, can file appeal. WAPDA & another v. Muhammad Iqbal & 10 others 2015 SCR 35 (N)
  430. Order XLI, Rule I — copy of decree-sheet along with the memo of appeal — mandatory — Held: The filing of a copy of decree-sheet with the memo of appeal cannot be dispensed with by the Court without filing of any application in this regard. Shera v. Kamal Din & 21 others 2016 SCR 565 (A) 2000 SCR 419 & 2010 SCR 369 rel.
  431. —Order XLI, Rule 1—memo of appeal—trial Court’s certified copy of judgment mandatory but not appended—exception—record of trial Court stood destroyed in earthquake and High Court itself observed the fact—held: In this state of affairs, dismissal of the appeal on this sole ground not justified—Further held:  that no law or rule cast a duty upon the person to do which is not possible— obtaining the certified copy of the trial Court’s judgment was not possible in the circumstances of the case, thus, the parties cannot be penalized and  the requirement of furnishing certified copy shall be deemed dispensed with. Muhammad Ajmal v. Azeem Akhtar & others 2017 SCR 1253 (A)
  432. — order XLI, rule 1 to 3 — memorandum of appeal — requisite documents — appeal dismissed on account that appellant did not challenge the decree rather only challenged the decision — Order XLI, Rule 1 & 2 conjointly require that memorandum of appeal should be appended with decree and set forth the grounds of objection to the decree — under rule 3, the appellate Court is empowered to reject or return the memorandum of appeal to rectify it or the Court may order to amend the same then & there suo-moto — first appellate Court not appreciated the provisions of rule 3 while keeping in view the facts of the case and principle of law settled by Superior Court relating to rule 3, which resulted into a resort to hyper technically and rejection of appeal at final stage of proceedings. Syed Talib Hussain Shah versus Syed Abid Hussain Shah & others 2023 SCR 904 (C & D)
  433. —Order XLI, Rule 5—According to the statutory provisions of Order XLI, Rule 5 of CPC mere filing of an appeal does not operate as interim injunction or suspension of the impugned judgment until the decree or order appealed is suspended by the appellate Court. Mohammad Maqsood v. Raja M. Naseer Khan & others 2017 SCR 1302 (B)  PLJ 2015 SC (AJ&K) 305 ref.
  434. O. XLI rule 11(2) — Clearly contains that if on the day fixed or any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the appellant does not appear when appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may dismiss the appeal — Order XLI rule 17(1) C.P.C. also contains that where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, an appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing the Court may dismiss the appeal — An appeal can be dismissed in default of appearance when it is fixed for hearing. Ghulam Mustafa v. Aurangzeb 2008 SCR 87 (B)
  435. Contention — That the date on which the orders of dismissal of appeals were passed was not a date of hearing is not sustainable because a perusal of rule 18 of Order XLI C.P.C., would reveal that the dismissal on date which is not fixed for hearing is permissible under law. Muhammad Younas and 7 others v. Auqaf Department 1999 SCR 355 (B)
  436. O. XLI R. 18 — The expression where on the day fixed, or an any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, — Clearly shows that dismissal of an appeal for failure to deposit process fee is permissible even on the date which is not fixed for hearing. M. Younas v. Auqaf Department 2000 SCR 220 (B)
  437. O. XLI R.18 — Dismissal in default of depositing the process fee — The parties may be impleaded as proforma-respondents or defendants for variety of reasons; no hard and fast rule can be laid down that failure to deposit process fee in case of a proforma-defendant or proforma-respodent, would entail partial dismissal of the cause or it would result in its total dismissal — It depends upon the circumstances for which the concerned party was impleaded as proforma-defendant or proforma – respondent — In the instant case according to the appellants’ case the decree for adverse possession was prayed for by the appellants and respondents No. 11 and 12 jointly — It is not mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiffs and proforma-defendants were in possession of separate parcels of land and thus the decree of adverse possession could be passed for separate parts — Obviously, the claim of the appellants and proforma-respondents was joint and inseparable — Thus, the interest of the plaintiffs and proforma-respondents No.11 and 12 being indivisible, respondents No. 11 and 12 were necessary party to the suit or for that matter to the appeal. Muhammad Akbar Khan and another v. Azad Government and 11 others 2000 SCR 242 (A)
  438. O. XLI, R. 18 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42. Muhammad Mirza Khan v. Muhammad Shafi Khan 2012 SCR 87
  439. O. XLI rule 19 — Dismissal of appeal for non-appearance — Not appealable order — An application under order XLI rule 19 C.P.C. lies before the High Court for restoration of appeal. Ghulam Mustafa v. Aurangzeb 2008 SCR 87 (C)
  440. –Order XLI, Rule 21—Limitation Act, 1908—Art. 169—application for cancellation of ex-parte decree—sufficient cause— limitation for—According to thecodal provisions it is the duty of the applicant to satisfy the Court that the notice was not duly served  or  applicant  was  prevented  by  sufficient  cause  from appearance  when  the  appeal  was  called  for  hearing—  Such application has to be filed within a period of 90 days as provided under Article 169. Azad Govt. & others vs Muhammad Amin 2018 SCR 1006  (A)
  441. O. 41 R. 22 — An aggrieved party who is a respondent in an appeal filed by other party, can support the decision not only on the points decided in his favour but also attack the points decided against him, without filing any appeal or cross-objections. Ameera Begum v. Noor H. 1998 SCR 372 (A)
  442. Order 41 R. 22 — Cross objections — A respondent may file cross objection within one month from the date of service, on him or his pleader, of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. Tanveer Hussain Shah v. Maqbool Begum and 23 others 1999 SCR 495 (A)
  443. Civil Procedure Code is not applicable in respect of disputes which fall under the provision of Family Court Act — Shariat Court, therefore could not invoke its powers under order XLI rule 22 to receive in evidence the documents at a belated stage. Azra Bi v. Zafar Iqbal 2001 SCR 580 (B)
  444. —Order XLI, rule 22—limitation for filing cross-objections—by respondent, if have no knowledge of hearing of appeal— limitation is 30 days, after due notice to him—all the respondents in High Court had knowledge about the hearing of appeal—cross-objections were not filed within limitation—and no condonation was sought. Muhammad Latif  Khan & others v. Azad Govt.& others 2017 SCR 1570 (A) —Order XLI, rule 22—cross-objections may be filed by respondent, even before service of notice—if it is otherwise in the knowledge of respondent that appeal has been filed and he had notice of date of hearing of appeal. Muhammad Latif v. Azad Govt.& others 2017 SCR 1570 (B)  AIR (31) 1944 Lahore 76(F.B); AIR 2008 Rajasthan 131 rel.
  445. O. XLI, R. 23 — Remand — Scope — If from the record, it was possible to resolve the controversy, the court instead of remanding the case, had to decide the appeal on merits itself. Muhammad Karim v. Kala and 4 others 2012 SCR 404 (B)
  446. O. 41 rules 23 and 25 — Remand — Distinction between rules 23 and 25 of O. 41 of the C.P.C. — Rule 23 is attracted when the suit is disposed of on preliminary issue. Rule 25 is attracted when the Courts below have omitted to frame issues necessary for resolving the controversy. In presence of above mentioned provisions extra ordinary powers under section 151 of the C.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and in unavoidable circumstances. There were no such circumstances in the instant case for the High Court to invoke its inherent powers — Case remanded to the High Court for decision according to law. Abdul Rashid v. Nek Alam and 6 others 1998 SCR 137 (A)
  447. Or. XLI rule 27 — Additional evidence-It is not necessary that the Court should so motu exercise the power under Order XLI rule 27. The said power can also be exercised at the instance of any party. In the instant case the concerned party wanted to adduce copy of ‘Jamabandi’ because the earlier copy on the file was incomplete-High Court came to the conclusion that final adjudication for just decision requires the said copy to be brought on record. A document can be produced or any witness can be examined as additional evidence to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment or for any other sufficient cause. The Court can admit additional evidence under the aforesaid provisions and other sufficient ground and not only on the ground to enable Court to pronounce the judgment, without taking additional evidence. Noor Begum v. M. Sharif  1994 SCR 238 (A)
  448. O 41 R. 27 — Additional evidence — This rule postulates that the appellate Court may allow the production of additional evidence: (i) when the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (ii) the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for (iii) any other substantial cause — The additional evidence cannot be allowed to a party in order to fill up the lacunas or omissions or to patch up the weaker parts of its case — A party to the appeal may move the Court for the additional evidence but it can be allowed if it is required by the appellate Court itself on the basis of its own appreciation of the evidence already on the record. The test is whether the appellate Court can pronounce judgment without taking into consideration the evidence sought to be produced. A party that had opportunity, but elected not to produce evidence cannot be allowed to give evidence that could have been given in the Court below — Mere lapse or negligence either on the part of the appellant or his counsel cannot be recognized as a substantial cause. Abdul Qayyum v. Bashir Ahmad Khan & 4 others 1996 SCR 22 (A)
  449. O. 41 r. 27 — Additional evidence cannot be allowed to a party in order to fill up the lacunas or omissions or to patch up the weaker parts of its case — A party to the appeal may move the Court for additional evidence but it can be allowed if it is required by the appellate Court. A party that had the opportunity but elected not to produce the evidence cannot be allowed to give additional evidence that could have been given in the Court below — Mere lapse or negligence either on the part of appellant or his counsel cannot be recognised as substantial cause. Muhammad Nazir v. Abdul Rashid and another 1998 SCR 248 (A)
  450. O. XLI — Rule 27 C.P.C. — Appellate Court can allow additional evidence irrespective of fact whether it was capable of pronouncing the judgment without such evidence. Muhammad Rizwan v. Abdul Jabbar 3 others 1999 SCR 187 (A)
  451. O. XLI R. 27 — Additional evidence can be allowed if the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred, has (i) refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted or (ii) the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined — Power to allow evidence is discretionary in nature but same is circumscribed by limitation specified in the rule — The parties cannot be allowed in order to patch up the weaker parts of their case or fill up the lacuna or to raise a new point. M. Siddique v. Abdul Khaliq and others 1999 SCR 466 (A)
  452. O. XLI R. 27 — Additional evidence — Court must be very cautious while allowing additional evidence — A party which seeks to bring additional evidence or record must convince the Court with proof that such party could not lead the evidence at proper stage due to some substantial cause. Nazir Hussain v. Muhammad Alam Khan and 3 others 2000 SCR 16 (A)
  453. O. XLI r. 27 — The appellate Court is empowered under this rule which is an exception to the principle provided the provisions of rule are attracted — Additional evidence can be allowed only where:(I) The trial Court has improperly refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted or (ii) The appellate Court requires such document or witness and cannot pronounce judgment without such additional evidence, or (iii) the appellate Court requires such evidence for any other substantial cause — Additional evidence cannot be allowed in order to allow the parties to patch up the weaker parts of its case or fill up omission or to enable it to raise new point — The party to appeal may move the Court for additional evidence but it can only be allowed if it is required by the appellate Court itself on the basis of its own appreciation of evidence already on record — This clause is attracted if some inherent lacuna or defects become apparent — The test is whether the appellate Courts can pronounce judgment satisfactorily without taking into consideration the evidence sought to be produced. Zarait Ullah Khan v. Fazal Ahmad and 29 others 2004 SCR 112 (A)
  454. O. XLI, R. 27 — See Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2. Abdul Ghafoor and 4 others v. Muhammad Azam and another 2012 SCR 65
  455. Order XLI, rule 27 — additional evidence — produced of — there must be sufficient cause and reason for production of additional evidence at appellate stage. Muhammad Sadiq v. Allah Ditta & 6 others 2014 SCR 789 (A&D)
  456. Order XLI, rule 27 — additional evidence — the parties should be vigilant while prosecuting their cases before the courts and if any party is careless and at proper time fails to take necessary steps, after completion of legal process of recording of evidence, at appellate stage, the case cannot be reopened in the garb of production of additional evidence. If such like practice is encouraged there will be no end of litigation. Muhammad Sadiq v. Allah Ditta & 6 others 2014 SCR 789 (B)
  457. Order XLI, rule 27 — additional evidence according to celebrated principle of law the permission for additional evidence can only be granted if the trial Court has refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted or if the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Without fulfilling these statutory requirements, the application of a party in causal manner for filling the lacunas or reopening the proceedings cannot be allowed. Muhammad Sadiq v. Allah Ditta & 6 others 2014 SCR 789 (C)
  458. Order Xli, Rule 27 — additional evidence — additional evidence can be allowed by the appellate Court (A) if the trial Court from whose decree an appeal has been filed, refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted and; (B) the appellate Court itself requires that it is not possible to pronounce the judgment without bringing on record any document or witness to examine or the Court may allow the additional evidence on any other sufficient cause — Held: additional evidence cannot be allowed only to fill up the lacunas in the case of a party. Salat & 15 others v. Wadi Hussain & 3 others 2014 SCR 1097 (A) 1994 SCR 238  rel.
  459. Order XLI, Rule, 27 — Additional evidence — The application for additional evidence cannot be allowed as the persons to whom a right has accrued on the basis of decree of the Courts below have not been impleaded as party. M. Tufail v. Muhammad Idress& others 2015 SCR 672 (F)
  460. —Order XLI, Rule 27—additional evidence—if an application for additional evidence was filed in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, has declined such application, then the applicant shall be entitled to produce additional evidence or the document sought to be produced was not available or was not in the knowledge of party or was beyond his control. Ghulam Muhammad Shah Versus Muhammad Tanveer Shah & 14 others 2021 SCR 543 (A)
  461.  —Order XLI, Rule 27—additional evidence cannot be allowed to be admitted at appeal stage if the document sought to be produced on record was available at trial stage or was in the knowledge of party. Ghulam Muhammad Shah Versus Muhammad Tanveer Shah & 14 others 2021 SCR 543 (B) 1985 CLC 1087 ref.
  462. —Order XLI, Rule 27—it is not right of a party to produce a document as additional evidence but it is up to the Court that any additional evidence may be produced to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment or adjudicate upon the real controversy–party cannot be permitted to produce additional evidence just to fill up lacunas. Ghulam Muhammad Shah Versus Muhammad Tanveer Shah & 14 others 2021 SCR 543 (C)
  463. O. XLI R. 31 — The judgment of appellate Court shall state the points for determination and the reason for the decision. Abdul Aziz  v. Muhammad Ashraf & 8 others 1998 SCR 204 (A
  464. O. XLI R. 31 — Deals with contents, date and signature of the judgement and provides that the judgement of appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reason for decision and where the decree appealed from is reversed or vacated, the relief which the appellant is entitled and shall be signed and dated by the Judge when pronounced. Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Riyasat & 8 others 2008 SCR 308 (B)
  465. O. XLI, R. 31 — Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 8 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42 — Suit for possession — Contents of judgment — Scope — Suit was dismissed by Trial Court and Appellate Court below, but on second appeal, High Court remanded case to Appellate Court for decision afresh — Validity — Provisions of R. 31 of O. XLI, C.P.C., relating to contents of judgment of Appellate Court, were mandatory — First Appellate Court was also a court of facts, and it was enjoined upon the said court to decide each and every issue after discussing the evidence — If decision of appeal was possible after recording the finding on one or more issues, then it was not necessary to record finding of all the issues — In the present case Appellant Court below had not recorded findings issue-wise, but only resolved the question of limitation and question as to whether suit was hit by O.II, R. 2, C.P.C., was not resolved — No issue was framed whether the suit was hit by O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. — Appellate Court below delivered the judgment in a telegraphic manner without discussing the facts or evidence on record — Appellate Court was obliged to record findings on each and every issue when the decision on the basis of findings on one issue was not possible — Two issues were crucial in the suit and without deciding said issues, appeal could not be decided — High Court, in circumstances, had correctly remanded the case to Appellate Court below for resolving of issues. Allah Ditta  v. M. Sharif and others 2012 SCR 60  Azad Govt. and another v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi 2002 SCR 302 ref.  Dr. Syed Ali Sajjad Bukhari and 6 others v. Sabir Ali Shah and 4 others 1987 CLC 229; Haji Abdul Jalil v. Anjuman Jame Masjid Haquani 1996 MLD 818 and 1997 CLC 1337 distinguished.
  466. O. XLI, R. 31 — Recording of issue-wise findings by Appellate Court — Rule — It is enjoined upon the Appellate Court to state the points for determination, decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and where the decree appealed from is reversed, the relief to which the appellant is entitled — The recording of findings issue-wise is the requirement of the rules but where the Court comes to the conclusion that the appeal can be decided without recording findings on each and every issue and delivers the judgment after considered the record, then the judgment is valid one. [When property in question was not evacuee, there was no question of allotment in favour of defendants/appellants. Courts below had rightly decreed suit for possession concurrently. Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court]. Sardar Begum (Mst.) v. M. Ilyas 2013 SCR 433 (C)
  467. O. XLI, rule 31 — provisions are mandatory in nature.  It is enjoined upon  the first appellate Court to decide each and every issue after discussing the evidence but if the decision of appeal is possible after recording findings only on one or more issues, then it is not necessary to record findings issue-wise. M. Riaz v. Kala Khan & others 2014 SCR 449 (A) 2012 SCR 60 and 2013 SCR 433 rel.
  468. Order XLI, Rule 31 —provisions are mandatory in nature — the first appellate Court is bound to attend all the issues and record findings on each and every issue, however, if the findings on one or more issues are sufficient to conclude the controversy then recording of findings on each and every issue is not mandatory. M. Qasim v. M. Yousaf 2016 SCR 519 (A) 2014 SCR 449 rel.
  469. Order XLI, Rule 31 — issue-wise findings — in judgment of first appellate Court — not necessary for the first appellate Court to record issue-wise findings but it is necessary that it shall determine what is the real question involved — if from the record the Court comes to the conclusion that findings recorded on only one issue are sufficient for resolving the whole controversy, then findings on the other issues and determination of all the issues is not necessary. Muhammad Rasheed Khan & 7 others v. Muhammad Ayub Khan & 6 others 2016 SCR 1278 (D)
  470. —Order XLI Rule 31—findings of trial Court—setting aside of principles—points for determination not formulated—if the appellate Court concurs with the findings, the detailed reasons are not required but the reversal of the judgment of trial Court can only be done after meeting with the reasoning advanced by the trial Court— Muhammad Yasin & 4 others  v.  Suhbat Ali & 8 others 2020 SCR 114 (A) 2013 CLC 419, 2007 SCMR 1094, 2012 YLR 2115 and 1984 CLC 1456 ref
  471. — Order XLI, Rule 31— issue-wise findings— provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31are mandatory in nature— It is enjoined upon the 1st appellate Court to decide each and every issue but if the decision of appeal is possible after recording findings only on one or more issues, then it is not necessary to record findings issue-wise. Muhammad Azam v. Maj ® Abdul Ghafoor & others 2022 SCR 777 (A) 2012 SCR 60, 2013 SCR 433 & 2020 SCR 114 ref.
  472. —Order XLI, rule 31—First appellate Court required to formulate points and pass issue wise findings while deciding appeal—the first appellate Court reversed the findings of trial Court without deciding the appeal issue wise. —Held: the points for determination have not been formulated while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The appellate Court if at all had to reverse the findings of the trial Court, that could be done only after meeting with reasoning of the trial Court, especially, in a case where decree is reversed, the appellate Court is bound to reappraise the evidence with reference to each issue of its findings. Appeal accepted and case remanded to first appellate Court afresh, adhering to law. Muhammad iqbal & others v. Zahid & others 2022 SCR 1050 (A)2020 SCR 114 & 2012 SCR 60 rel.
  473. —Order XLI, Rule 31—issue-wise findings—the above- reproduced issues are crucial issues, going to the roots of the case and in this scenario, the findings on these issues are sufficient to conclude the controversy and— Held: recording of findings on each and every issue is not necessary, on the ground that findings on these issues shall determine what is the real question involved in the case. Sardar Mushtaq Ahmed v. F.W.O & others 2022 SCR 1642 (C) 2016 SCR 1278 Rel.
  474. — order XLI, rule 31 — issue wise judgment — it is enjoined upon the 1st appellate Court to decide each and every issue after discussing evidence — of course, it decision of appeal is possible after recording the findings on one or more issues, then it is not necessary to record findings on all issues — Ashfaq Hussain & others versus Mst. Rukhsana Begum & others 2023 SCR 821 (A) 2012 SCR 60 & 2013 SCR 433 ref.
  475. —Order XLI, rule 33—Power of Court of Appeal—grant of relief to—non-appealing party—if a proper case is made out then an Appellate Court is competent to grant relief to a non-appealing party.  Muhammad Latif v. Azad Govt.& others 2017 SCR 1570 (C)  1973 SCMR 367; PLJ 1980 SC (AJ&K) 5 rel.
  476. Order XLI and  Order XLIII — appeal before High Court — memo of appeal shows that it is  filed against the judgment and not against the decree — appeal was against the judgment under Order XLIII, CPC —Held: dismissal of appeal by the High Court on the ground  that it is against the decree under Order XLI, not justified. Maneeza Begum v. Maqsood Bi 2016 SCR 1567 (A)
  477. Order XLII, Rule, 2 — second appeal — documents to accompany memo of second appeal — provision of Rule,2 of Order XLII are applicable in AJ&K—According to the statutory provisions of Civil Procedure Code as adapted and enforced in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the provisions of Rule 2 of Order XLII, CPC are fully in operation. Abida Sultana v. Mst. Zanib Raqiba & 3 others 2016 SCR 1513 (A)
  478. Order XLII, Rule 2 — second appeal — mandatory documents to appended with memo of appeal —judgment and decree of first appellate Court — judgment of Court of first instance — unless dispensed with — non-compliance results into dismissal of appeal — According to Order XLII, Rule,2 CPC, in addition to copies specified in Order XLI, Rule,1, the memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by the copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance unless the appellate Court dispenses therewith. As in this case neither the appellate Court has dispensed therewith nor the appellant has requested for dispensation of the same. Furnishing of the certified copy of the Court of first instance in appeals from the decree appealed from is mandatory requirement and according to the enunciated principle of law non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of the statutory provisions results into dismissal of the lis. Abida Sultana v. Mst. Zanib Raqiba 2016 SCR 1513 (B)
  479. O. XLVI R. 1 — Review Powers Confined — Mistake of error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient cause can only be a ground for the exercise of review. Allah Ditta v. Mehrban 1992 SCR 145 (B)
  480. O. XLVII R. 1 — Empowers a Court to review its judgement or order on grounds:-(i)            On discovery of new and important matter — Which was not within the knowledge of the parties and which could not be produced at the time hearing; (ii)           On account of some mistake or error apparent on face of record; or (iii)          For any other sufficient reason. Azad Govt. v. Sr. M. Iqbal Khan 2008 SCR 256 (C)
  481. Order XLVII, rule I — Scope — Grounds of review — Law empowers the Court to review its judgment if there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. Haji Nazir Ahmad v. Raja Muhammad Saeed and 11 others 2010 SCR 231 (D)
  482. O. XLVII, R. 1 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, R. 43. Abdul Rasheed v. Gul Taj Begum 2012 SCR 53
  483. O. XLVII, R. 1 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, O. XLVI — Review of Supreme Court judgment — Supreme Court could review its judgment under O. XLVI of Supreme Court Rules on the grounds similar to those mentioned in O. XLVII, C.P.C., which postulated that the review was permissible on the ground of error apparent on the face of record on discovery of some new evidence or fact; but the review was not permissible, if a party would argue that a different interpretation of law was possible. Safdar Ali Khan v. Azad Government of the State of J&K 2012 SCR 331 (B)
  484. O. XLVII, R. 1 — See Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 2. Safdar Ali Khan v. Azad Government of the State of J&K 2012 SCR 331 (A)
  485. O. XLVII, R. 1 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Azad Govt. of State of J&K through its Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Muzaffarabad and others v. Neelum Floor Mills, Asgharabad, Muzaffarabad, through Mufti Kafait Hussain Naqvi 2013 SCR  725
  486. O. XLVII, R. 1 — See AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978, O. XLVI, R.1. Ch. M. Latif, Retired Additional Chief Secretary (General) Advocate Supreme Court v. Azad Govt. of the State of J&K through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others 2013 SCR 742
  487. O. XLVII, R. 1 — See AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978, O. XLVI, R. 1. Muhammad Saleem Khan v. Mst. Muqarab Jan and 2 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 777 (D)
  488. Order XLVII, Rule 1 — essential — preconditions — to exercise the review jurisdiction — Held: The powers of the review conferred by Order XLVII, C.P.C are indeed of a limited and exceptional nature intended only to correct errors arising out of specified reasons and circumstances. Dr. Munawar Ahmed & 4 others v. Muhammad Aslam & 23 others 2016 SCR 1014 (F)
  489. Order XLVII Rule. 9 Second Review does not lie. Sardar Ali v. Karamat Ali Khan & others 1993 SCR 226 (A)
  490. Res Judicata — Plaintiff-appellant being proforma-defendant in the earlier suit yet not challenging the decision at any stage — Principle of res judicata will equally apply on him. Held: High Court rightly dismissed the appeal. Appeal dismissed. Zaighum Saleem v. M. Saleem 1992 SCR 344 (A)
  491. Concurrent finding of fact by trial Court and High Court — Cannot be interfered with by this Court. Muhammad Suleman v. Mst. Razia Bibi 1992 SCR 265 (C)
  492. Cost — Cost examplary suit brought without any legal justification and being vexatious order of the High Court regarding exemplary cost maintained. M. Yasin Khan v. Azad Govt. 1993 SCR 22 (A)
  493. Departure from the claim — The parties cannot depart from the case as set up in their pleadings and vary the same subsequently at the appellate stage – The parties are bound by their pleadings and even if evidence is led in support of a plea which was not set up in the pleadings cannot be looked into. Muhammad Hussain  v. Abdul Majid & others 1993 SCR 319 (A)
  494. If a decree for possession is passed on the basis of a compromise between the parties but, when challenged, nothing tangible is brought on the record to satisfy the Court in support of the factum of adverse possession there may be strong inference that a sale has been dressed up as a decree. Mst. Shero Begum v. Abdul Qayyum Khan and others 1993 SCR 296 (A)
  495. No party allowed to set up a case different from a case which has been set up in pleadings. Azad Government  v. Qamar-uz-Zaman Niazi 1993 SCR 9 (A)
  496. Lacunas filing of — Additional evidence — Question of filing the lacunas — Evidence has been allowed even in the cases where it has been held that there was some inherent lacunas; to hinder the administration of justice — It cannot be said that additional evidence must be refused despite the fact that order conditions to admit additional evidence are satisfied — If the ‘lacuna’ is such that the Court feels that the same should be filled up so as to enable it to pronounce the judgment or another sufficient ground, it can allow additional evidence. Noor Begum v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1994 SCR 238 (B)
  497. Concurrent findings — All the Courts below gave concurrent findings evidence had received due and full consideration by the subordinate Courts — the findings cannot be disturbed. Ashiq Hussain Shah & other v. Mst. Fazal Begum & others 1994 SCR 263 (A)
  498. Legal Representatives — Impleadment of — In appropriate cases the application to implead legal representatives filed after limitation can be allowed if the circumstances so justify in this regard — For instance where death of a defendant/respondent cannot be known to the plaintiff-petitioner for his being resident in different places or the names and addresses of the legal representatives cannot be possibly traced out within time allowed by law- which situation does not exist in the case in hand. Muhammad Aslam & others  v. Custodian and others 1994 SCR 318 (A)
  499. In between the lines, in the body of the judgment it appears that the trial Court has mentioned in the concise form the respective pleadings of the parties and in the operative part of the judgment has recorded the reasons that since no evidence was produced by the bank-appellant in support of its claim, therefore, its suit stood dismissed whereas the respondent fully supported his claim through his statement, thus his suit was decreed — No defect or illegality having been committed by the Courts below-appeals dismissed. Habib Bank Ltd.  v. Kh. Ali M. 1995 SCR 113 (B)
  500. Defendants did not file an application for setting aside the decree nor availed any other remedy but they chose to file a regular suit, alleging that the ex-parte decree was procured through fraud — No fraud was specifically pleaded — The only ground on which the reversal of the ex-parte decree in the previous suit can successfully be prayed for in a suit for setting aside the decree is that the plaintiff was prevented by fraud of the decree holder in the previous suit from placing his case before the Court — In other words he will have to prove that the notice of the previous suit was not served on him and thus non-service was due to fraud of the defendant in the previous suit — This may be done by an averment that there was collusion between the process-server and the identifier or that there was a deliberate misleading of the process-server or other similar allegation – For a suit to be maintainable the fraud must be actually positive, amounting no intentional contrivance and to keep the parties and the Court in ignorance or the real facts and obtaining the decree by such a contrivance — The fraud must be extrinsic to the proceedings of the Court — It must be in the conduct of the suit by keeping the defendant out of the Court by a deliberate employment of machinery of the Court in such a way that the defendant is prevented from placing his case before the Court. Muhammad Ilyas v. Aziz-ur-Rehman & others 1995 SCR 268 (B)
  501. Res judicata — Principle of — In criminal and civil jurisdiction — Whether there is any concept of res judicata in case of the findings given in exercise of criminal jurisdiction in relation to civil jurisdiction and vice versa — It is well settled principle of law that the findings given in exercise of criminal jurisdiction are not relevant  as evidence on the same point to be resolved in exercise of civil jurisdiction and vice versa — A Civil Court or a Criminal Court must record its findings after considering the evidence in the relevant case and not on the strength of the findings given by  the Court in another capacity. Mst. Zareena v. Nisar Hussain 1996 SCR 82 (B)
  502. Constructive res judicata — Respondents filed a writ petition No. 17 of 1985 decided on 13.5.1986 challenging the acquisition proceedings which was dismissed — The respondents did not raise the grounds in that writ petition on which the present writ petition has been filed — In the writ petition the respondents have alleged that the plots made from the land in dispute were being allotted in pursuance of the notification dated 21.4.1994 in violation of law — Respondents alleging that they were not aware before the notification dated 21.4.1994 that their land was being allotted — Record showing that the decision was taken to provide plots to the land owners whose land was acquired as early as in 1974 —Allotment Committee was constituted on 12.02.1975 — The scheme for the allotment was prepared before 1979 in pursuance of  which the allotments of the plots were made in 1979 and 1981 — Notification dated 21.04.1994 was necessitated due to de-notification of some land as a result of acceptance of another writ petition — In these circumstances it is not correct that the respondents were not aware at the time of institution of the previous writ petition in 1985 that their land was to be allotted to the affected land owners — However, the respondents did not raise this question in their previous writ petition, thus the present writ petition is clearly hit by the principle of constructive res judicata. AJK Govt. v. Gohar Rehman & others 1996 SCR 112 (A)
  503. Concurrent findings of fact — This Court normally does not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, unless of course, it is shown that there was a mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence. Javed Iqbal v. Mst. Kalsoom Bi 1996 SCR 33 (A)
  504. Ex-parte Order vacation of — If an ex-parte order has been passed against a defendant he cannot ask for re-opening of the proceedings unless he shows sufficient cause but he can join at any time from the stage which has already been reached. The purpose to be thus achieved is that process of law is not hindered — This principle has to be liberally construed as it favours decision on merits which is the policy of law — Further held: That the principle that a defendant can join at hearing of the case from the stage of appearance is the reference to the stage of the case and not of a particular defendant or respondent. M/s Amin Spining v. NBP Ltd. 1996 SCR 252 (A)
  505. Return of plaint — The plaintiff-appellant did not seek the return of the plaint in the Courts below — However in the concise statement in this Court he took the point — Since it is a legal question which could be raised for the first in this Court with the permission of the Court — Held: When the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaint was under-valued it should have been returned to the plaintiff-appellant instead of dismissing it. M. Sarwar v. Rehmatullah 1996 SCR 296 (B)
  506. Inadvertence of the parties or mistaken legal advice or ignorance  of law or negligence of a party are no grounds for allowing additional evidence — A party that had an opportunity but elected not to produce evidence cannot be allowed to give evidence. M. Siddique v. A. Khaliq 1999 SCR 466 (B)
  507. It is enjoined upon the Court allowing the additional evidence that it must also record the reason.  Muhammad Siddique  v. Abdul Khaliq and 28 others 1999 SCR 466 (C)
  508. Policy of law appears to be not to allow additional evidence to fill up the lacunas — The appellate Court can only allow additional evidence if it itself so feels that judgment cannot be pronounced. Muhammad Siddique v. Abdul Khaliq and 28 others 1999 SCR 466 (D)
  509. Co-sharer — Abatement — In case of Muslim heirs, their shares are specified under Muslim law and, thus, the appeals would not be rendered incompetent because one of the co-sharers or his heirs could not be impleaded. M. Younas and 7 others v. Auqaf Department 2000 SCR 220 (C)
  510. It is well settled principle of law that what is not allowed to be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. Karamat Ali Khan and another v. Sardar Ali and others 2001 SCR 312 (E)
  511. A party cannot be allowed to take a plea inconsistent with the plea taken earlier and the admission once made by a party cannot be revoked without the leave of the Court — No pleading subsequent to the written statement other than by way of defence of set off can be filed by a party as a matter of right. Inhabitants of Singola Through M. v. Azad Govt. & others 2001 SCR 518 (B)
  512. It is within the competence of a Court seized with the matter to appoint a commission — However it is a matter of judicial discretion — Under the provision of C.P.C. Court can issue commission for examination of a person who on account of his sickness or infirmity is unable to attend the Court or where the evidence available before the Court is equally balanced and the Court feels necessary elucidate such evidence in light of the report prepared after local inspection by the commission — The Court can resolve boundary disputes and disputes relating to identity of land by issuing commission for the purpose of spot inspection — However, commission cannot be appointed if the evidence on the record is clear and such report shall result in filing in the lacuna or to improve the weak evidence of any party. Munshi Khan v. Barkat Ali  2002 SCR 361 (A)
  513. Ordinarily an appeal lies from every decree — The orders are appealable only if so provided in law — Decree conclusively determined the rights of the parties while an order does not necessarily do so —Word ‘adjudication’ refers to a judicial determination of a matter in controversy — ‘Judgment’ means the judicial decision of a Court or Judge — A judgment not necessarily deal with all the matters in issue in a suit but may determine only those issues the decision whereof will  have the effect of adjudicating all the matters in controversy or will result in a final disposal of the suit — Every statement of grounds will not be a judgment but will be so only if such decision can result in  a decree or order. Nasim Bashir v. Abdul Jabbar 2003 SCR 536 (C) PLD 1990 SC AJK 23 & 1986 SCMR 1736 rel.
  514. In a cause where a suit is not permitted implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibition can be spelt out of legal provisions, the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to reject the plaint. Abdul Rehman v. Sher Zaman 2004 SCR 129 (C)
  515. Parties were vigilant about the controversy — They were provided opportunity to produce evidence in support of their respective claims which was availed by them — There was no occasion to allow them further opportunity to patch up the lacuna or omissions. Zarait Ullah Khan v. Fazal Ahmad and 29 others 2004 SCR 112 (B)
  516. View that, decree-holders, after alienating the land have become incompetent to get execution of decree, not correct. M. Yusuf & 3 others v. Walayat Khan and 17 others 2004 SCR 522 (B)
  517. If an application for withdrawal of case with permission to file fresh case is not allowed by the Court, the application is dismissed, not the case — Even — If the respondent had applied for withdrawal of earlier case with the submission to file fresh, his application, not suit could be dismissed. Muhammad Bashir Khan v. Muhammad Iqbal & 12 others 2005 SCR 353 (C)
  518. Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in civil matters the parties are allowed to get redressal of their grievance either personally or through their pleader or recognised agents — If the parties want to end their litigation by any means recognised by law, the Courts are bound to help them. Haji Muhammad Shafi v. Khadim Hussain 2006 SCR 101 (B)
  519. Negligent party — A negligent or indolent party cannot claim any benefit from the Courts of law. Raja Muhammad Akram Khan v. Azad Government 2006 SCR 110 (A)
  520. The question raised in the instant case have been decided in previous round of litigation — The same need not to be repeated. Raja M. Akram Khan v. Azad Government 2006 SCR 110 (B)
  521. The Court has power to decide the application even after the defendant has filed written statement or that issues have been framed — Trial Court has power to look into the validity or otherwise of the plaint at the time the suit is instituted and even after a written statement has been filed — The Court can even decide it at the time of final adjudication — Even filing application on behalf of defendant for rejection of suit is not necessary. Abdul Haleem Khan and 8 others v. Kh. Abdul Rasheed & 5 others 2007 SCR 277 (B)
  522. Plaint — Cause of action can be ascertained from averments made in the plaint — If plaint does not disclose any cause of action it is liable to be rejected — But if some extraneous matter not referred in the plaint, is stressed for rejection of plaint, the Courts refrain from resorting to the harsh step of rejection of the plaint unless the Court comes to that conclusion in view of the plaint coupled with other documents of which the Court is empowered to take notice that there is chance of decree even after prolonged trial. Arif Mehboob v. Zahir Ahmed alias M. Zahid 2007 SCR 410 (A)       
  523. C.P.C. provides procedure for conduct of civil cases which does not in any way affect the powers and inherent powers of the Family Court for doing complete justice and for issuing just decisions — Held: There is only one exception to this principle which has time and again been interpreted and upheld by the superior Courts — If any deviation from procedure causing injustice to a party is apprehended, the provision must be applied strictly. Syed Shujahat Hussain Kazmi v. Mst. Nazish kazmi 2007 SCR 438 (A)
  524. Where the parties are alive to the disputed points, reframing or non-framing of issues would be immaterial. Syed Shujahat Hussain Kazmi v. Mst. Nazish kazmi 2007 SCR 438 (C)
  525. The decree in favour of the appellant does not debar the respondent from seeking amendment in the plaint as the appeal is a continuation of suit and as long as the right of appeal exists in favour of a party, it is entitled to seek a remedy provided by law — Contention, that the decree has accrued a right in favour of appellant and amendment cannot be allowed to dislodge the accrued right, is accepted — Held: Would defeat the very essence of appeal or the essence of law that the appeal is continuation of the suits — Held further: Where a right is barred by limitation and consequently a right has accrued in the other side in view of that bar, that right cannot be taken away by way of amendment. Mst. Bashira Begum v. Walayat Khan & 6 others 2008 SCR 118 (B)
  526. Amendment sought after a considerable long time which itself is no bar for amendment but it would necessitate further process in the case which would prolong the agony of litigation and it must be compensated by due costs — Amount of costs allowed by High Court is very meagre which is raised to Rs.10,000/- Mst. Bashira Begum v. Walayat Khan & 6 others 2008 SCR 118 (C) 
  527. Review petition cannot be filed on a ground not taken before the Court at the time of hearing of appeal as the same cannot be made basis for reviewing the judgment — It is principle of law that a point not raised at the time of arguments cannot be made a valid ground for reviewing a judgment or order. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sardar M. Iqbal Khan 2008 SCR 256 (D) 1992 SCR 129, 1993 SCR 63, 1999 SCR 343 and 2001 SCR 179 rel.
  528. Appearance of Clerks of Advocates — This is a common unhappy practice that the Presiding Officers of the Court allow the Clerks of the Advocates to appear when the cases are called on for hearing — C.P.C. does not accept the presence of anybody in a case other than a party himself, his Advocates or recognised agent — This a common error and every Advocate resorts to it. Kala Khan v. Muhammad Matloob & 2 others 2008 SCR 288 (A)
  529. Execution of decree — Once a decree has been passed by a Court having jurisdiction and the same having attained finality it has to be executed in letters and spirit. Azmat Bi & another v. Muhammad Laal 2008 SCR 300 (F)
  530. Repeated findings by Superior Courts in Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are that the appellate Court is not required to give its findings on each and every issue or record a judgment issue wise — The term “point for determination” refers to all the important issues involving the case — The provision in fact provides for recording a judgement keeping in view the pleadings, evidence and points for determination and reasons for deciding the issues — The provision in fact provides to avoid bald findings of appellate Court and disposal of appeals in slipshod manner — The provision does not at all provide that every point raised by the appellant or respondent must be decided by appellate Court. M. Riaz v. Muhammad Riyasat & 8 others 2008 SCR 308 (D)
  531. Necessary party — The person who ought to have been joined as parties and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed or necessary parties. Public Health Engineering Division & another v. Aurangzeb Khan 2008 SCR 590 (A)
  532. Non-petitioners-appellants have not denied the fact of ownership alleged in writ petition — There was not even an unspecific denial of clear assertion — Held: The absence of denial amounts to admission that land is owned by petitioner. Public Health Engineering Division & another v. Aurangzeb Khan 2008 SCR 590 (E)
  533. While determining the question whether plaint discloses cause of action or not — Or civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit — The Court has to look into the averments  of plaint and assume the same as correct — If the Court reaches to the conclusion that relief can be granted to plaintiff, then the civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the subject-matter and the plaint also discloses the cause of action — If Court reaches to the conclusion that no relief could be given to plaintiff — Then it can be said that plaint did not disclose any cause of action and the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the subject-matter of suit. Gulab Butt & 2 others v. Mir Abdul Ghni 2009 SCR 382 (A) PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lah. 1050, 1995 C.L.C.1982 and PLD 1993 Kar. 151 rel.
  534. No illegality or jurisdictional defect was pointed out by the High Court in its judgment — Held: Appeal could not be treated as revision. Shoukat Usman v. United Bank Ltd. 2010 SCR 173 (F)
  535. The principle of estoppel by conduct applies with full force to such situation, where a party by its conduct obliges the Court to adopt a course which is contrary to its practice or laid down procedure, the party will be debarred from raising objection contrary to its argument before the Court. Further held: A party which leads the Court to deviate from normal procedure is normally estopped from challenging the order passed by the Court with the consent of such party. Wazir H. Shah v. Ali Shan 2011 SCR 1 (C) AIR 1936 Madras 856, PLD 1969 Lah.365 and 1989 SCMR 1826, rel.
  536. Amendment of plaint — Can be allowed but Court have to remain conscious — Discretion should be exercised judicially. Held: Amendment of plaint can be allowed but where the applying party is acting malafidy or its blunder has done some injury to his opponent and a valuable right has come to rest in the other party, amendment cannot be allowed — Court has discretion to allow amendment in exceptional cases but the discretion has to be exercised judiciously — Further held: Extending a discretion in favour of a person, who has filed a suit and seeks amendment in the plaint after period of limitation has expired the Courts have to remain conscious and refuse the same to keep the scale of justice equal between the parties and no party is given discretionary preference over the other. Mehboob Kashmiri & another v. Khurshid Ahmed & another 2011 SCR 492 (A)
  537. For making out a good prima facie case, Held: it is not necessary that a party shall show that in all circumstances its case will succeed.  It is sufficient if a party shows that it has raised a fair question for determination by the Court.Ali Shan v. M.D.A. & others 2014 SCR 535 (C) 2013 SCR 61 rel.
  538. Its application in Family matters — Held: The C.P.C. is applicable in the Family matters. The general principles of C.P.C. are applicable. Mir M Fareed v. Rukhsana Bibi 2014 SCR 1646 (C) 
  539. ریاست آزاد جموں و کشمیرمیں اطلاق — بروئے قراداد اختیار کرنے قوانین مجریہ 1948ء— برصغیر میں نافذالعمل مجموعہ  ضابطہ دیوانی 1908ء جیسا کہ اُس وقت مغربی پنجاب میں نافذالعمل تھا کا آزاد ریاست و جموں و کشمیر میں  کے معرض وجود آنے کے سال 1948ء میں بروئے اطلاق  قرارداد اختیار کرنے قوانین نمبر 279 ، 1948ء کیا گیا۔ اسد وغیرہ  بنام زاہدہ بیگم وغیرہ(الف)2016 SCR 1522
  540. —plaint can only be rejected if all reliefs are barred under law—Well established principle of law that the plaint can only be rejected if all the reliefs claimed , as , are barred under law.         Marim Bibi & others v. Hakim Ali & others 2017 SCR 944 (B)
  541. —For setting aside the ex-parte proceedings the defendant has to show good cause for his non-appearance—Held: that the defendant was negligent in prosecuting his case—we would like to amend the order of the High Court and burden the defendant-respondent with the cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. Zulfiqar Abbasi v. Sohrab Khan & others 2017 SCR 1066 (C&E)
  542. —Drafting of plaints and pleadings—object of procedure laid down by CPC—Held: the procedure has been laid down in order to facilitate the work of the Courts and to avoid any possible ambiguity in the pleadings of the parties due to lack of necessary details or insertion of unnecessary details or failure to disclose the entire claim capable of decision in one suit. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (H)
error: Content is protected !!