Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Citation Name : 2008 &nbspSCMR &nbsp236 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Mrs. ANIS HAIDER


Side Opponent : S. AMIR HAIDER


Ss. 12 (2) , 141 & O.VII, R.11(a)- - - APPLICATION under S.12 (2) , C.P.C. containing
serious allegations of forgery and fraud- - - Rejection of such APPLICATION on basis of
reply/written statement by invoking provision of O.VII, R.11(a), C.P.C.- - - Validity- - - Order
VII, R.11, C.P.C. pertaining to suits and plaints in particular would. be attracted only when
plaint, by itself, did not disclose any cause of action- - - Order VII, R.11, C.P.C. could not be
attracted on basis of written statement as initial burden would remain on plaintiff/applicant to
prove his case on basis of assertions made in pleadings Pleadings of parties could not be taken
as evidence, particularly when its maker was not even examined in its support and cross-
examined by his opponent- - - Provision of S.141 , C.P.C. would not attract to such
APPLICATION - - - Substantial requirement of recording of evidence on pure and serious
question of fact could not be by- passed by unjustifiably invoking of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.- - -
Such APPLICATION could not be decided on mere reply/written statement by respondent
without recording of evidence- - - Principles.







Citation Name : 2008 &nbspSCMR &nbsp236 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mrs. ANIS HAIDER
Side Opponent : S. AMIR HAIDER


Ss. 12 (2) , 141 & O.VII, R.11(a)- - - APPLICATION under S.12 (2) , C.P.C. containing
serious allegations of forgery and fraud- - - Rejection of such APPLICATION on basis of
reply/written statement by invoking provision of O.VII, R.11(a), C.P.C.- - - Validity- - - Order
VII, R.11, C.P.C. pertaining to suits and plaints in particular would. be attracted only when
plaint, by itself, did not disclose any cause of action- - - Order VII, R.11, C.P.C. could not be
attracted on basis of written statement as initial burden would remain on plaintiff/applicant to
prove his case on basis of assertions made in pleadings Pleadings of parties could not be taken
as evidence, particularly when its maker was not even examined in its support and cross-
examined by his opponent- - - Provision of S.141 , C.P.C. would not attract to such
APPLICATION - - - Substantial requirement of recording of evidence on pure and serious
question of fact could not be by- passed by unjustifiably invoking of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.- - -
Such APPLICATION could not be decided on mere reply/written statement by respondent
without recording of evidence- - - Principles.







Citation Name : 2008 &nbspSCMR &nbsp1262 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. FATEH BEVI
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB


Ss. 12 (2) & 141 - - - Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.14 & 17- - - West Pakistan Civil Courts
Ordinance (II of 1962), S.7- - - Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- - -
APPLICATION for setting aside judgment/decree making award rule of Court- - -
Respondent obtained award by alleging gift in his favour by applicant- - Applicant denied to
have made such gift- - - Trial Court dismissed APPLICATION but same was accepted by
Revisional Court and upheld in Constitutional petition by High Court- - - Validity- - - No
documentary evidence existed with regard to alleged gift made by applicant- - -
Judgment/decree making award rule 'of Court was ex parte- - - Alleged arbitration agreement
had not been proved due to non- production of marginal witnesses- - - No reliance could be
placed on deposition of arbitrator as he was neither related to either of parties nor resident of
village, where parties resided and land situated nor there was any justification for his
appointment as arbitrator- - - Civil Judge Second Class, who made award rule of Court, was
lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to try civil suit of value of property subject matter of award- - -
Concurrent findings of fact on questions of law and fact to the effect that Civil Judge, Second
Class, lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, that gift was not made; that judgment/decree making
award rule of Court was collusive, were un- exceptionable- - - Supreme Court dismissed
petition and refused leave to appeal.







Citation Name : 1986 &nbspMLD &nbsp1310 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ISMAIL
Side Opponent : GUL INAYAT SHAH


Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - - - Ss. 12 (2) & 141 - - Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII
of 1979), Ss. 15 & 21- - Ex parte order setting aside of- - APPLICATION of tenant for
setting aside ex parte order of eviction made under S. 12 (2) , Civil Procedure Code which was
not applicable to rent proceedings- - Neither tenant nor his Advocate appearing before Rent
Controller to challenge evidence of landlord and Rent Controller passing eviction order which
had become final- - Dismissal of APPLICATION of tenant made under S. 12 (2) , Civil
Procedure Code, upheld.