๐Ÿ‘‹ Welcome, visitor from Columbus, US!

27/2019 R.A (Civil Revision) Mst. Muneera Khatoon D/o Late Maulana Abdul Quddus (Applicant) V/S City District Government Karachi (CDGK) and others (Respondent)

Sindh High CourtCivil Law2020

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)

Share on WhatsApp

27/2019 R.A (Civil Revision) Mst. Muneera Khatoon D/o Late Maulana Abdul Quddus (Applicant) V/S City District Government Karachi (CDGK) and others (Respondent) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author) Order Date: 18-MAY-20

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss.96, 115 & O.I, R.10---Appeal or revision on behalf of a party having no grievance against dismissal of suit---Maintainability---Applicant was impleaded in the suit under O.I, R.10, C.P.C., but she neither filed written statement nor appeared in the witness box---Suit was dismissed on merits against which no appeal had been filed on behalf of plaintiff---Validity---Defendants were not supposed to have any grievance against the dismissal of suit unless they had raised a counter claim in their written statement against the plaintiff which had also been dismissed or not decided by the Trial Court---No adverse observations had been passed against the applicant in the case---If applicant wanted the suit to be decreed then she should have either filed a separate suit or should have paid court fee to become co-plaintiff provided she had any claim in the suit property to be adjudicated in her favour---Applicant, after having been impleaded as defendant had not filed written statement nor she had appeared in the witness box---Suit had been dismissed on merits against which no appeal had been filed on behalf of plaintiff---Present suit could not be decreed against main contesting defendants on appeal by one of the defendants who had not filed even written statement in the Trial Court---Applicant was not aggrieved person in consequence of impugned judgment---Revision as well as appeal pending before Appellate Court filed by the applicant were not maintainable, which were dismissed with cost, in circumstances. H.M Yahya & Co., Karachi v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd., Karachi and another PLD 1969 SC 65; Syed Musarat Hussain Zaidi and another v. Syed Salim Jawaid Zaidi and another PLD 1983 Kar. 548; Habibullah v. Zakir Ali and another PLD 2000 Kar. 238 and Mst. Arfa Arif v. Mst. Kulsoom Naqvi PLD 2000 Kar. 31 rel.

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.

Related judgments

Suit for Damages on Malicious Prosecution can be filed within one year

PLJ 2014 ยท Sindh High Court ยท 2014

Party can be added at any stage of the Trial

Sindh High Court ยท 2014

Permission to produce documents under order 13 rule 2

PLJ 2013 ยท Sindh High Court ยท 2013

Right to sue in case of Benamidar has six years limitation

PLJ 2010 Karachi 132 ยท Sindh High Court ยท 2010

There is difference between Power of Attorney and Will

PLJ 2008 Karachi 121 ยท Sindh High Court ยท 2008