101/2015 Civil Revision Muhammad Saeed (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Baqir Bukhari (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 24-JAN-17
The Applicant through the instant revision Application has challenged the order passed by VIIth Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (East) in Civil Appeal, upholding the order dated passed by VIth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (East) in Suit whereby the plaint of the applicant (plaintiff) was rejected. Section 115, Order VII Rule 11, Order XXXIX of Civil Procedure Code & Article 78 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were discussed. It was observed that the High Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction to satisfy itself as to whether the jurisdiction by the courts below has been exercised properly and whether the proceedings of the subordinate Court do suffer or not from any illegality or irregularity. It was further observed that while rejecting the plaint only contents of the plaint are to be looked into. It was commented that the order for rejection of plaint while hearing arguments on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot be passed. It was also observed that the Learned courts below passed the impugned orders / judgments in complete oblivion of the law on the point. The difference between Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC was taken into consideration in the light of Jewan and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others (1994 SCMR 826). It was commented that oral agreement would be a valid and enforceable as a written agreement provided it fulfills all the requirements of a valid contract. However, whether or not the contract in question can be enforceable or not, it is to be decided by the Trial Court after a full dress trial, as, inter alia, relief of specific performance is a discretionary one.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.