Anda di halaman 1dari 21

Civil procedure code---- notes

+++++++ CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 ++++++++++

Civil procedure code lays down the procedure, which the courts of civil jurisdiction
have to follow.
The procedural law is framed to provide the courts a uniform and unquestionable
procedure to avoid diversity in dealing with civil cases.
The object of the code is clear from its preamble, the code intended to consolidate
and amend the laws relating to the procedure of civil courts .
The code, being a general law, in case of conflict between the code and special law,
the latter prevails over the former.
It can be concluded that civil procedure code as a civil law describes the formation of
civil courts, its procedure, classification, powers and discretion of the judges.
---------------------Pleadings are statements in writing of each party containing contentions of each
party and detail of his case . Pleadijnd is defined in order 6 of the code of civil
procedure as plaint or written statement.
------------------Plaint is the statement of claim in writing and filed by the plaintiff, in which he sets
out his cause of action with all necessary particulars. Plaint is the first process in
inferior court in the nature of an original writ, whereby a party seeks remedyfrom
court for the redressal of his grievances.
----------------------------------Written statement is the statement of defence in writing and filed by the defendent,
in which he deals with every material fact alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint.
Defendant can state any new facts, which he considers to be in his favour, and cn
raise legal objections to the merits of the case, prescribed by various lawse.g plea of
limitation , plea of estoppel, plea of res-judicata etc.

-------------------------------Rejoinder means answer of the plaintiff, which he gives keeping in view new facts
alleged by the defendant in written statement.
.................................................. ......................
It means further answer of the defendant, ( if court permits) which he gives in light
of rejoinder.
------------------------------------------------------------The object of pleading is to bring the parties to an issue and purpose of the rules
relating to pleading is to prevent the issue beig enlarged. Further that the parties
themselves know what are the matters in dispute and what facts they have to prove
at the trial.


-------------------------------------------------------------Every pleading shall contain and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the
material facts, n which the party pleading ( plaintiff or defendant) relies for his claim
or defence, as the case may be.
IT shall not contain, the evidence by which they are to be proved, and it shall, when
necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively.
Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in figures.

General rules of pleading

In civil procedure code order 6 deals with pleadings in general, order 7 deals with
plaint, and order 8 deals with the written statement. The following is the summary of
the rules comprised in orders 6,7, and 8 of civil procedure code:
1. In pleading state your whole case, in other words set forth in pleading all material
facts on which you rely for your claim or defence , as the case may be.
2. In pleading state facts and not the law, if any matter of law is set out inj your
opponent's pleading, do not plead to it.
3. In pleading state only the relevents facts on which you rely, and not the evidence
by which tose facts are to be proved.
4. In pleading state material facts onlyand ommit immaterial and unnecessary facts,

and do not plead to any matter which is not against you.

5.In pleading, state the facts of the case concisely, but with precision.
6. It is not necessary to setout the whole or any part of the document, unless the
precise words thereof necessary, it is sufficient to state the effects of document as
briefly as possible.
7. It is not necessary to allege any matter of fact which the law presumes in your
favour or as to which the burden of proof lies upo your opponent party.
8. The party should not plead conclusion of law in pleading.
9. Legal pleas such as estoppel, limitation and resjudicata or res subjudice etc, may
be pleaded in written statement.
10. In cases where the party pleading relies on any mis representation, fraud, breach
of trust,wilful default, or undue influence , particulars shall be stated in the pleading.


Issues are points of contest between the parties in a suit . In other words issues are
those points raised from the pleadings which se a way for the court for entertaining a
case and it brings the court at the right conclusion of justice. The determination of
issues has great importance in the trial of a case, because it is issues and not the
pleadings, which indicates the appropriate evidence to be given. Pleadings
constitutes allegations to one-side or the other, and after determination which of the
allegations are material for the purpose of the trial and which of them are admitted
or denied, issues are framed and on the basis of these issues the parties stand the
test of the trial.
The object of settlement of issues is to determine the material points in controversy
between the parties.
Issues arises when a material proposition of fact or law affirme by one party and
denied by other party.
Issues , whether raised from allegations in the pleadings or from other materials,
should not be inconsistent with pleadings, the court is bound to frame the proper
issues arising from the pleadings.

According to order 14 rule 1, issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law
is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Material propositions are those
propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to
sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.
Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form
the subject of a distinct issue. At the first hearing of the suit the court shall, after
reading the plaint, and the written statements, if any, and after such examination of
the parties as may appear necesssary, ascertain upon what material propositions of
fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and
record the issues on weich the right decision of the case appears to depend.
If the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence, then according to
order 14 rule 1 , nothing in this rule requires the court to frame and record issues.
If an issue is not framed in the suit, while an allegation was made in the plaint inrespect of certain facts and challenged in written statement, the court can allow the
parties to lead the evidence on such point, and would give its decision without
framing that issue.

Issue of fact means any issue, which has not been determined, by a rule of law, but
is to be answered, in accordance with the evidence laid before the court.
Issue of law means that issue, which is to be answered in accordance with the law,
and not in accordance with the facts or evidences that is laid before the court.
According to order 14 rule 2, " where issues both of law and fact arise in the same
suit, and the court is of the opinion, that the case or any part thereof may be
disposed of on issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose
may if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact untill after the issue
of law have been determined".

The provision regarding the materials from which issues are framed is found in order
14 rule 3, which provides that " the court may frame issues from any of the following
materials :1. The court may frame issues from the allegations made on oath by bthe parties, or
by any persons present on their behalf or made by the pleaders of such parties.
2. The court may frame issues from the allegations made in the pleadings or in
answers to the interrogatories delivered in the suit.
3. The court may frame issues from the contents of the documents produced by
either part ".


================================================== =
The power of the court to amend and striking-out of issues is mentioned in order 14
rule 5, which provides that, " The court may at any time before passing a decree
amend the issues or frame additional issues as may be necessary for determining the
matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. The court
may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike-out any issues that appear to it
to be wrongly framed or introduced.

ivil Procedure Code

- Mere averments in plaint would not confer jurisdiction on civil court where it
inherently lacked jurisdiction.
PLD 1992 Pesh. 87 (D.B.)
- Final decision with regards to civil rights ,duty, obligation and status of parties shall
be that of civil court.
PLD 1995 SC 457
SECTION 9; O-7 R-11; BANKING ORDINANCE 1979 Sec 6(1) & (4)
- Mere averments in plaint would not confer jurisdiction on civil court where it
inherently lacked jurisdiction.
Courts below correctly found that special banking court had exclusive jurisdiction
order unexceptionable .
PLD 1992 PESH 87(DB)
SECTION 10 & 151
- In the absence of consolidation of suits and consolidation proceedings, evidence in
one suit could not be read in the other suit.
Muzaffar Hussain Vs. Mst. Bivi
PLD 2012 Lah. 12
- Forum of venue-court where in to make application
1983 CLC 1948 Lah

1986 Law Notes (Lah) 431

1986 CLC 1211 Lah
- Courts which passed the final decree means judgment against which no remedy is
available and all remedies, appeals, revisions, review has been exhausted and no remedy
is left.
- Adjudication means the decision on merits after proper appraisal.
PLD 1995 SC 564
ALSO SEE 1994 MLD 1441 for different view.
- Mere mentioning of words Fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction in
passing judgment and decree were not sufficient specific instances must be given.
Abdul Hameed vs. Mehmood
2001 SCMR 1316.
SECTION 12(2) & 151 C.P.C.
Judgment and decree in question was assailed by respondent under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and
the same was set aside by Lower Appellate court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
---Validity--- Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of open fraud---No rule was
required to correct/rectify a wrong---Court had always inherent powers to prevent abuse
of process of law by moulding relief in appropriate cases---Provisions of S.151, C.P.C.
were rightly invoked by Lower Appellate Court in aid of justice, as it was thought
necessary in the circumstances of the case to prevent abuse of process of the court and to
avoid a situation resulting in stalemate.
Muhammad Ismail Versus Rehmat Ali
2009 YLR 1265
Sect. 12(2)
- Forum: judgments and decrees of trial court were amended by High Court
Application under section 12(2) was filed before trial court held that as High Court
passed final decrees in view of modification in its review jurisdiction, application u/s
12(2) shall lie in High Court.
Muhammad Aslam
Vs. Molvi Muhammad Ishaq.
2012 SCMR 147
SECTION 20-----O-XLI, R-1
Sect. 115
- Revision--- Term case decided---Scope---Power of revision is conferred upon High
Court and the same is required to be exercised within the ambit of section 115, C.P.C.--Language used in section 115, C.P.C. empowers a court to exercise jurisdiction in any
case which has been decided---Terms suit, judgment, order or decree have not been used
in section 115, C.P.C., rather the term case has been used, thus the meaning cannot be
restricted only to a final decision of a case---Term case decided is to be seen in broader
concept and it can be extended to the orders made, while proceedings with the case by
Trial Court, which only determined a part of the case and such determination had an
effect on the rights of parties, while proceeding to ultimate decision of the case--Interlocutory order, which deals with a substantial question in controversy between
parties and affect their right comes within the ambit of case decided---Powers conferred

under section 115 C.P.C. cannot be restricted only to the extent of final decision of the
case, rather it includes interlocutory orders also against which no appeal is provided.
- Valuation given in plt.200- application for appointment of receiver from to be
determined according to value given in the plaint.
1995 CLC 1874
- Transfer of appeals . appellate court earlier as trial court recorded evidence of some
witnesses-had not recorded his own observation-no material order passed- still appeals
recalled from him.
PLD 1995 Lah 89
Sect. 27, O.V, R.6, O.IX, Rs. 6 & 13.
- Setting aside exparte decree Purpose of service is that the defendant should be
heard, but he cannot be allowed to frustrate proceedings by staying away. Once
summons are duly served exparte decree can follow and execution can be levied
against defendant because then he becomes judgment debtor. Any irregularity can be
disregarded in service, if the court is convinced that the defendant had the knowledge of
Usman Punjwani Vs. Ayaz Ali
PLD 21012 Sindh 78.
SECTIONS 35 & 35-A C.P.C.
Ss.35 & 35-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition--Costs, awarding of ---Scope---In addition to actual costs and compensatory costs, High
Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction can award compensatory costs even in excess of
twenty five thousands Rupees as prescribed under S.35-A,C.P.C.---Special costs can also
be awarded by High Court in exercise of its inherent powers---Costs including
compensatory costs as well as exemplary costs can be imposed by High Court in its
Constitutional jurisdiction.
Kawas B . Aga
City District Government, Karachi (CDGK) through Nazim-e-Ala
2010 PLD 182
- All questions relating to execution discharge or satisfaction of decree arising between
the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed would be determined in execution
proceedings and not by a separate suit.
1995 MLD 1943
(entire case law discussed)
Ss. 48, 151, O.IX, Rs. 8 & 9.
- O.IX Rule-9 is designed for restoration of suit whether in whole or in part dismissed
under Rule-8 and it does not speak anything for restoration of application even about an
execution petition. But the same principles will apply and applications/petitions can be
restored even under inherent powers.

U.B.L. VS. Plastic Pack Pvt. Ltd.

2012 CLC 229 Sindh.
SECTIONS 96 & 115
- S. 151---Subsequent events, taking notice of---inherent jurisdiction of Civil Court--Scope---Civil Judge had inherent powers to take notice of subsequent events and do
justice to save parties from unnecessary litigation.
Mst. Parveen Akhtar
Muhammad Adnan
2010 C L C 380
Lahore High Court, Lahore
- S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Suo motu action---Limitation---Jurisdiction of High
Court under S.115, C.P.C. is a supervisory jurisdiction of superintendence and control--High Court in its revisional jurisdiction can take cognizance for correction of illegalities
and irregularities in judgments and orders of subordinate court as suo motu and no bar of
limitation can be placed against suo motu jurisdiction of revisional court---Maximum
period allowed for filing revision petition under S. 115, C.P.C. by aggrieved person is 90
- S. 115, proviso I & II---Expression copies of pleadings, documents and orders--Scope---Copies of such documents are to be provided to the party who applies for it and
it is not necessary that applicant is aggrieved or not---If any party to litigation applies
under the law, the court is bound to provide the copy of the order within three days--Court is not a substitute of copying agency but the copy issued by court serves the
requirement of law and revision is entertainable on the basis of copy provided by the
court---Court which passes the order only has to provide the copy of impugned order.
Allah Ditta Versus Lahore Development Authority and 5 others
2012 C L CL 271
- If the courts below overlooked material facts or reached at an erroneous conclusion, it
will be deemed as material irregularity, High Court could reverse such findings.
Muhammad Suleman V. Rasheeda Bibi
2012 CLC 79 (Lah.)
- S. 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3---Waiver of question of limitation by court
not permissible---Wrong decision on question of limitation revisable sui motu by High
Court under S.115, C.P.C.---Principles. The question of limitation can be considered by
the court itself whether it is pleaded or not by the parties to the suit.
Zahir Hussain and 4 others Versus
Bashir Muhammad and 5 others.
2012 C L C 377
Section 115
- Revision case decided terms Suit, judgment, order or decree have not been used
in Sect. 115 rather case has been used, thus, meaning cannot be restricted only to a
final decision of a case. The term case decided is to be seen in broader sense and may
include orders passed which determined only a part of the case.

Muhammad Musa
2012 CLC 254 (Baluchistan)

Hamid Ali.


- Appeal which was found to be incompetent could be treated as revision and vise
1991 CLC 853
conversion of revisional petition into a constitutional petition-petitioners request for
treating revisional petition as a constitutional petition ,declined by high court in
circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that court fee required to be paid for
constitutional petition had not been paid. Revisional petition was dismissed as not
1991 CLC 1768
constitutional petition can be converted into a revision or vise versa if it does not
prejudice the right of any party and advance cause of justice instead of frustrating the
1991 CLC NOTE 101 AT P.82
No limit and bar on high court to convert a revision into a constitutional petition in
exercise of its discretion.
1991 SCMR 1135
Maintainability of appeal as RFA or RSA-held, proceedings originally instituted as a
writ petition cannot be treated as a first or second appeal-proceedings of one kind can
ordinarily be treated as proceedings of another kind provided period of limitation does
not intervene subject to further qualification that such proceedings should otherwise be
competent under provisions sought to be invoked.
1988 MLD 1445
- Second appeal brought before high court exhibiting certain features which
demonstrated that it fell within scope of interference under sec.115 CPC-high court
should in such cases, exercise its jurisdiction under said provision of law-high court, held,
should have allowed conversion of said second appeal into revision and then proceeded
to see
PLD 1987 SC 139
Recalling order of high court-application for-high court converting constitutional
petition as rent appeal-application for recalling order of such conversion not bared or
support by legal grounds, held, was not maintainable and dismissed in circumstances.
1986 MLD 95
Second appeal-revision-objection regarding competence of civil revision not taken up
before high court but taken first time in supreme court, held, objection was an
afterthought such objection if taken up in high court and found tenable high court could
have treated revision as second appeal subject to the satisfaction of other requirements.
1985 SCMR 27
Appeal filed under sec.100 not found to be competent prayer on behalf of the
appellant for conversion pf appeal into revision upon plea of ignorance of amendment
such application belated-held, cannot be accepted.
PLD 1984 QUETTA 52

Second appeal against order of Majlis-e- shoora-conversion of appeal into revision

question of deficiency of court fee or limitation not involved and prayer bonafide appeal
treated as revision
PLD 1984 QUEETA 92
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
- Art.199 read wind military courts (validations of orders)ordinance(1 of 1980),s.2(2)
martial law order MLA(Zone c) No.20 and Sindh rented premises ordinance(xvii 0f
1979)S.21 Writ petition-appeal-court, with a view to foster justice, can take appropriate
action or adopt prohibited by any provision of law no prohibition in law against
conversion of a writ petition into an appeal impugned orders of military Court , during
pendency of writ petitions , converted by validation ordinance into orders passed under
Sindh rented premises Ordinance subject to right of appeal before High court-conversion
of pending writ petitions into appeals-held, in furtherance of justice and to provide fair
opportunity to parties before single judge of High Court under section 21 of Sindh Rented
Premises Ordinance,1979.
PLD 1982 KARACHI 130
- Courts are required to do substantial justice-one form of proceedings, in the interest of
the justice may be treated as another Revisions, appeals and constitutional petitions have
to be treated one or the other, interchangeably, to meet the end of the justice
1989 CLC 1949 (KARACHI)
1980 CLC 930
- Exertion defective not giving particular as under O-21 R-11 but good enough for
-purposes of Sec.23.
- Concurrent finding of fact to be reversed when important points ignored and evidence
PLD 1994 SC 326
- No period prescribed for filing should be filed within 90 days failing which
discretion might not be exercised in petitioners favour on grant of unreasonable delay.
1995 SCMR 69
- Scope of revisional power is vest corresponds to remedy of certiorari.
1995 SCMR 69
- Revisional court cannot interfere with discretion of a competent court unless
discretion was arbitrary, fanciful & whimsical, Sec.115 confers revisional jurisdiction not
High Court where subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in ti or in exercise of jurisdiction acted illegally or with
material irregularity.
1995 SCMR 105
- High Courts power of Judicial Review under Art.199 is assumable to its
jurisdiction under Sect.115 CPC except in two aspects (i) abuse or (ii) excess of power
which are well recognized grounds of intervention under Art.199
1995 SCMR 105.

Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XIV 1994; Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XDXIII 1993.
- Revision can be filed either H.C. or Distt. Court powers of H.C. not withdrawn
by Act XIV of 1994.
PLD 1995 Lah. 31.
Court must remedy injury or wrong done to a party because of order of court---Procedure
was provided under S. 144 C.P.C., while power to order restitution was inherent in court
and should be exercised whenever justice demanded---Present was not a case of
restoration of possession but of restitution of possession because order of revenue
authority regarding dispossession was set aside by appellate authority declaring the same
to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
Muhammad Ramzan
2009 CLC 513
SECTION 150 O-39 R-2 (3).
- Breach of injunction Business of the Court granting the injunction transferred to
another court Latter Court can entertain petition.
- Transfer Includes transfer of business under Civil Courts Act. The word transfer in
Sec.150 is not inapplicable to a case where the District Judge fixed the jurisdiction of the
Court under the Civil Courts Act and transferred the whole of the business within a
certain area to it.
AIR 1923 Madras 92.
- Inherent powers withdrawal of suit on bonafide mistake on account of similarity in
the names of defendants in two suits suit to be restored under inherent powers which
can be exercised when the provisions of CPC are not in conflict.
PLD 1995 Kar. 282.
SECTION 151 & 115.
- Order passed u/s 151 CPC revision competent when court has failed to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction or where order impugned was perverse or illegal.
1995 CLC 1939.
Appellate & Revisional Jurisdiction Distinction
Revision is:
(i) Where Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it.
(ii) Where Court has not exercised jurisdiction vested in it.
(iii) or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
In the case (ii) above, jurisdiction can be exercise rightly or wrongly and be corrected in
appeal only not in revision.
Appeal & Revision are different species, appeal is continuation of original suit and has
wide scope while Revision is limited to some illegality, material irregularity or
jurisdictional defect.
Abdul Razzak v. Lal Bux
2012 CLC 4 (Sindh) (DB).
- Revision is not a matter of right and cannot be equated with right of appeal which is a
substantive right.
PLD 1996 Kar. 68

O-1 R-10
- Misdescription of parties not fatal can be corrected by court at any time.
1986 CLC 2987
PLD 1985 SC 438
PLD 1988 Kar. 362
AIR 1933 B200
PLD 1976 Lah. 269
PLJ 1975 1016
O-1 R-10
- Public at large already impleaded in application for grant of succession certificate
any body could assist trial court even without making application.
1995 CLC 1553
O-1 R-10
- Necessary party not impleaded technicalities cannot be allowed to unsuit a party on
technical grounds case remanded for impleading.
1995 SCMR 1748
O-3 R-1 & 2; O-6 R-1; O-6 R-14 &15; O-7 R-10; O-29 R-1; O-33 R-3.
- Defective signing or presentation or plaint by person not holding power of attorney
no violation irregularity curable.
PLD 1973 Lah. Note 33 P-41.
O-3, R-2 & SEC.96.
- Plea of minority not raised in written statement. It can be raised and decided at
appellate stage it is duty of the court to apply such law even through plea has not been
1995 CLC 175 (Lah).
O-4, R-1.
- Omission to comply with requirements of present action can be cured if in good faith.
AIR 1931 All. 507.
O-6, R-1.
- Pleadings of parties would not control or govern applications of correct law to
establish or prove facts.
1992 SCMR 417.
- Deviation from pleadings no application for amendment of plaint as to correct the
facts plaintiff could not take advantage of legal principle that admission contrary to
record was not binding. No evidence could be lead contrary to pleadings.
PLD 1995 Lah. 113.
O-6, R-2.
- Where a claim never made in pleadings no amount of evidence could be looked into
in poof of such facts.
1995 CLC 1906

O-6, R-2 & 4.

- Facts not stated in pleadings evidence lead to prove such facts will be simply ignored.
1995 MLD 1714.
O-6, R-14 & 15; O-4, R-1.
- Absence of signature, verification or presentation does not affect jurisdiction of court.
AIR 1931 All. 507.
- Want of verification pleadings not void irregularity no affect on merits.
AIR 1932 Lah. 28.
AIR (36) 1949 All. 499.
- Can be amended even after limitation.
AIR 1961 Bomb. 292.
- Omission to sign by one of joint plaintiffs.
PLD 1978 Q.45.
O-6, R-17.
- If the case is fixed for arguments on application under O-6 R-17 and the suit is
dismissed for default, only such application can be dismissed for default and not the main
PLD 1969 SC 270
CLC 1986 1441
CLC 1986 2153.
O-6, R-17.
- Relief of possession being consequential to suit for declaration, amending plaint to
include possession allowed.
1995 SCMR 69.
O.VI R.14 & O.XXIX R.1
- Signing & Verification of pleadings of a company Company Secretary Director or
any principal officer can sign & verify pleadings Board Resolution not necessary just
court has to be satisfied that an authorized person has signed/verified the pleadings.
Provisions of Or.VI Rules 14 & 15 and provisions of O.XXIX Rule 1 are neither
contradictory nor exclusive of each other rather complimentary to each other.
Punjab Agri Development & Supplies Corp. Vs. U.B.L.
PLD 2012 Lah. 61.
O. VII R.1(e)
- Plaint must disclose a cause of action i.e. contain statement of material facts necessary
for plaintiff to allege and prove in order to succeed in his cause.
Ch. Muhammad Siddiq vs. Faiz Mai
PLD 2012 S.C. 211
O. VII R.11
- The word shall means that it is mandatory and the court must reject plaint if court
finds any of the four clauses applicable to the plaint. Only contents of plaint to be seen
but court not bound to accept them discretion to biased judiciously.
Haji Abdul Karim Vs. Florida Builders.
PLD 2012 S.C. 247
O. VII R.11, SECTIONS 2(2)(9)11.

- Rejection of plaint and dismissal of suit distinction enumerated.

Haji Abdul Karim
V. M/S Florida Builders.
PLD 2012 S.C. 247
See also PLD 2008 S.C. 371
O-7, R-11 & S.149 Art.185(3) of Constitution.
- Trial Court on the ratio of Siddiq Khans case (PLD 1984 SC 289) determined the
exact amount of court fee and deficiency made interference declined.
1995 SCMR 911.
O-7, R-10.
- Court lacking jurisdiction over subject matter of suit bound to return plaint instead of
sending to Distt. Court for transfer to competent court.
- Power of transfer flows out of valid institution of suit where court to which plaint
presented had no jurisdiction, pecuniary or territorial, suit cannot be deemed to be validly
1989 CLC 1405 (Lah)
AIR 1938 Sindh 124
PLD 1973 Lah. 394.
- Its scope wide to cover a case in which by legislation situation arises after filing of
AIR 1938 Oudh 224
PLD 1973 Note 83 (D.B)
- Appellate Civil Court reaching conclusion that revenue court had no jurisdiction, it
was bound to return plaint.
PLD 1985 Quretta 54.
AIR 1934 Lah. 233.
O-7, R-11.
- Duty of court to examine plaint at any time without application.
PLD 1977 Kar. 747.
O-7 R-11.
- On basis of averments in plaint not on basis of defence.
PLD 1966 (W.P) lah. 1050.
O-7 R-11; BANKING ORD. 1979 SEC.7 & 13.
- It is defect of presentation of plaint in first instance in a wrong court which attracts O7 R-10.
1984 CLC 1401 Kar.
- Rejection of plaint barred by any law court to examine averments as in the plaint
not inquiry needed assume averments to be correct.
1984 CLC Kar. 513.
- Court can take into consideration material other than contents of plaint.
1992 MLD 225 (Lah).
O-7, R-11.
- Rejection of plaint & dismissal of suit distinction.
- Plaint not disclosing cause of action proper way is to allow amendment order
rejecting plaint was set aside & case remanded.
1995 CLC 1982.

- While applying provisions of O.VII, R.11 C.P.C., Court was not entitled to look into
the grounds of defence, other documents and written statement. Only the contents of the
plaint are to be perused.
Ch. Nazir Ahmad Vs. Ali Ahmad
PLD 2012 Lahore 18 (D.B)
- Suit for damages by a welfare society/association claim of damages for mental torture,
agony and distress Plaint was rejected.
PLD 2012 Sindh 29
O-9, R-4; SEC.151, 115.
- Restoration of revision dismissed for non prosecution petitioner has to explain the
absence of all concerned including his own as well as his counsel.
PLD 1995 Lah. 31.
- Case should not be dismissed for default in early hours of the day.
PLD 1966 Lah. 356.
- While dismissing for non-appearance exigency of lawyers has to be seen.
PLD 1966 SC 461,467.
- Taking harsh view while dismissing in default.
PLD 1955 F.C. 178.
- Decision should be on merits.
PLD 1965 SC 651 at P.655.
O-9, R-8.
- Dismissal of suit for non appearance of plaintiff plea of misconception of actual date
plaintiffs counsel did not appear as witness hence dairy or brief not produced
plaintiff did not stand to gain anything by being negligent carelessness of a counsel in
failing to appear in the absence of his client has often been condoned immovable
property of considerable value involved case was remanded for decision on merits.
1993 CLC 1313 (Lah).
O. XII R.11.
- Incompetent suit should be buried as soon as possible if incompetence is based on any
express or implied embargo under any law Sometimes, suit may not be specifically
barred by law in express terms Trial court should reject suit under Inherent Powers,
The condition of only reading the averment of the plaint and nothing else is applicable
when O.VII Rule-11 is to be applied and not under inherent powers.
Ilyas Ahmad
Vs. Muhammad Munir etc.
PLD 2012 Sindh 92.
O. XII R.16.
- Judgment on Admission plaintiff upon application can move for judgment on
admission whether relating to who suit or partially, likewise, defendant can also move for
dismissal of suit wholly or partially However, if admission is only by one of the
defendants only it will have no bearing on the others case.
Tanvir Ahmad Vs. Malir Development Authority
PLD 2012 Sindh 66
O.XIII, R.1.

- Plaintiffs after closing of oral evidence seeking permission to produce documents not
appended due to inadvertence - documents sought to be produced were not even relied
upon under O.XIII R.1. The situation does not fall under inadvertence no good cause
has been shown.
Nasrullah Khan Vs. Mst. Bashiran Bibi
2012 CLC 234 Lah.
O-14, R-2.
- Issue of limitation being mixed question of law and fact, in case of suit for dissolution
of partnership and rendition of accounts suit cannot be dismissed on preliminary issue
case was rightly remanded by High Court.
PLD 1995 SC 629.
O.18 R.18 C.P.C.
- Report of local inspector on the basis of which judgment and decree was reversed not
challenged at any stage Leave to appeal refused.
Islam Din v. Sarfraz Hussain
2001 SCMR 1225
- Affidavit can only be considered when filed on direction of court.
- In affidavit information obtained from others I am informed and add and verily
believe it to be true.
PLD 1995 Lah. 98.
O-20 R-14 (i) & O-23 R-3.
- Suit for preemption decreed by consent in application for compromise no time fixed
for payment of preemption money trial court fixed for payment of preemption money
trial court fixed one months time Held court while passing preemption decree under O20, R-14 was required to specify date for deposit of money. Failure to deposit by
preemptor suit was rightly dismissed.
1995 SCMR 1426.
O-21, R-1.
- Mode of paying money in satisfaction of decree decree holder would certify such
payment upon legal notice from executing court.
PLD 1995 Lah. 107.
O-21, R-2(i)
- Adjustment/satisfaction of decree in whole or in part outside court judgment debtor
is required to certify such adjustment to court within 90 days from time of adjustment.
PLD 1995 SC AJ&K 83
O-21, R-11
- Defect or non verification of execution petition not fatal, application not void merely
irregularity not affecting merits of case.
PLD 1984 AJ&K 57.
- Date of previous execution petition not mentioned- defect not material
AIR 19924 CAI 398
O-21, R-58, 59 & 62

- In case of objection petition to attachment, investigation to claims must be conducted

by the court, No separate suit for same.
PLD 1990 LAH 4 (DB)
O-21, R- 94
- No stamp duty on sale certificate issued by court under O-21 R- 94 CPC in favour
successful auction purchaser sale certificate only to be registered with the sub- registrar.
1995 CLC 1922 KAR
O-22, R-3, 4 & 12
- Execution petition failure of decree holder to implead legal heirs of judgment debtor.
Rule 12 excludes application of RR 3 & 4.Execution will not abate.
PLD A.Z.J.&K. 57
O-37, R-2
- Even if suit not based on negotiable instruments i.e. bill of exchange, hundi,
promissory note, Special court obliged to follow summary procedure of O-37 CPC on all
suits before it including suits based on mortgages of all kinds on statement of accounts.
PLD 1995 SC 362
O-37, R-3
- Suit based on promissory notes for recovery of amount claimed against defendant in
summary manner, dispute could not be referred to arbitrator in terms of the agreement.
1995 CLC 1024
0-37, R-3 Art.185(3) 0f Constitution .
- Defendant was allowed loan on furnishing Bank guarantee equal to suit amount
Revision to the extent of bank guarantor remained unsuccessful. Keeping in view defence
raised in application for leave and law laid down in Fine Textile Mills VS Haji Umar
(PLD 1963 SC 163) appeal was accepted-order of H.C and trials court as to bank
guarantor set aside defendant was prepared to offer any solvent security to satisfaction
of court-leave defend granted on furnishing any solvent security to satisfaction of trial
court . 1995 SCMR 925
- Object & spirit of O -37 neither unislamic nor inequitable.
PLD 1993 LAH 224
- Object to secure ends of justice-claim based on negotiable instruments no need to
prove consideration if execution of notice not denied.
PLD 1993 LAH 244 H.N (h)
ORDER 37 RULE 1& 2
- Suit shall be decreed where failure of appearance or omission to apply for leave
However, where leave is refused plaintiff has to prove his case.
PLD 1987 LHO 101
- Leave to defendant refused even when following pleas raised on confirmation slips
defendants signature forged suit barred from last deposit beyond 3 years mortgage
deed relating to different loan from different branch penal interest wrongly claimedblank pronote fraud by bank.
PLD 1990 LAH 99
- Leave refused even on following pleas: signatures obtained on blank documents,
statement of A/C incorrect , letters of guarantee not properly stamped, promotes contain

exorbitant interest against islam etc.

PLD 1989 KAR 371
- Suit in summary jurisdiction for refund of security from defendant leave not sought
within 10 days application dismissed-suit decreed defendants claim that plaintiff had
embezzled large sum of money and had filed suit for recovery of same of no avail to
defendant because he has still to established that plaintiff embezzled money refund of
security till defendants suit is decided.
1995 SCMR 45
O. XXXVII R. 2 & 3
Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Sect. 5
- Suit for recovery based on Promisory Note delay in filing leave application on the
ground that trial court was on leave for nine days due to Winter holidays held delay of
every single day has to be explained sufficiently, otherwise, the object of summary
proceedings will be defeated. Furthermore, only Presiding Officer happened to be on
leave while office remained open for filing/institution during this period. Petition for
leave is time barred as delay not sufficiently explained.
Muhammad Naeem V. Muhammad Javed Iqbal
2012 CLC 175 (Peshawar).
- Guarantors claimed that they had claimed denial of liabilities by several letters , and
notice to bank it was duty of bank to deny and controvet same no such step taken by
bank-silence of bank would seriously reflect adversely, leave granted.
1994 CLC 1404 KAR
- Leave was granted subject to depositing amount in question in court or bankchallenged this order in writ validity in condition - no current valuation of mortgaged
property available on record nor plaintiffs claimed its depreciation petition converted
into appeal and the same was allowed to the extent that defendant would deposit cash of
specified amount for defending suit within 20 days.
1994 SCMR 512
- Leave- according to banks own record value of pledged stock Rs.800,000/- and
mortgaged land about 400,000/- at the time pledge/mortgage-value of land must have
arisen manifold-claim amount adequately secured- without additional security
unconditional leave to be granted.
1989 MLD 1090 LAH
- Imposing condition on leave discretionary must be exercised in judicial and
reasonable manner.
1983 CLC 2828 LAH
- Conditions for leave-depositing half money in cash or furnishing bank guarantee
harsh-may furnish security instead.
1992 CLC 1705 LAH (Malik Qayyum)

- Leave. Court must , prime facie, find from application and affidavit , that there is
reasonable material making incumbent on plaintiff, to prove consideration , or there
exists a plausible defence , or some specific question of fact or lae requiring
PLD 1963 SC 168
1975 SCMR 398
1973 SCMR 100
- Case decided- does not mean decision of the entire suit it may relate to the decision
of interlocutory matter- old view has been abounded vide AIR 1943 LAH 65.
1992 SCMR 718 at page 725(E)
- Suit decreed against principal debater while unconditional leave granted to guarantor
suit to continue as bank had the legitimate right against the guarantor.
1992 SCMR 718 at page 724 para (9)
PLD 1978 KAR 263
- Leave for guarantor guarantor not issued any negotiable instrument to warrant
summary proceedings-guarantee indemnity bonds not negotiable instruments Summary
procedure not applicable.
1992 SCMR 718 HN (B) AT P 724 para 9
- Court can grant or refuse leave but same must be sought within 10 days of services-in
case of failure or refusal by court, court can summarily decree suit and averment in plaint
to be deemed admitted by defendant where defendant failed to seek leave within 10 days
court justified to pass decree defendant estopped from subsequently saying he had not
been properly served and no copy of plaint annexed with summons
PLD 1993 LAH 224 HN(C)
- Leave granted on certain conditions conditions not fulfilled leave not operativedefendant not applying for leave court ampowed to decree suit taking averments o plaint
as admitted.
PLD 1984 KAR 127
O-37,R-4 &O-IX,R-13
- Exparte decree under o-37 cannot be set aside under o-9 R-1. it has to be within four
corners of O-37 R -4.
PLD 1984 KAR 127
- There is wide power of court to set aside exparte decree u/o 38 R-4-only embargo is
special circumstances-circumstances beside being good cause or sufficient cause have to
be of special nature.
PLD 1984 KAR 127
PLD 1993 LAH 244

- Order sought to be set aside consent order no special circumstances made out
application dismissed.
PLD 1984 KAR 127
O-37 (scope)
- Suit for damages outside the purview of order 37 CPC.
1992 CLC 1913 KAR at 1915-A
- Directors hold fiduciary relationship qua the company.
PLD 1992 SC 276
O-38, R-5
- Attachment before judgment, application as well as reply must be supported by
affidavit-reply not supported by affidavit contents application deemed not converted.
1995 MLD 1707 LAH
O-39, R-1
- Plaintiff himself showing monetary compensation adequate relief-not entitled to
discretionary relief of specific performance.
PLD 1977 KAR 191
- No attempt made to show balance of convenience on side of the plaintiff- loss found
to be assessable in money-injunction not granted.
PLD 1979 KAR 668
O-39, R-1 & 2, R-2(2)
- Court while granting temporary injunction can impose conditions-these conditions are
not to be either similar to security or the conditions may be imposed u/s 151 or sec. 94
CPC and reference of such provisions should be clearly made.
PLD 1995 LAH 117
O-39 R-1 &2 (3);O-41 R-5; Contempt of Court Act Sec 3
- Stay order and injunction distinction injunction is not effected unless it is
communicated stay is operative the moment it is issued.
PLD 1949 LAH 100 (F.B)
1974 SCMR 509
PLD 1978 KAR 152
O-39, R-1 & 2
- Entitlement to grant interim injunction in the absence of any determination of amount
due as distinguished from amount claimed petitioner entitled to interim injunction.
1995 CLC 1877
O-39 R-2 (3)
- Punishment for disobedience under O-39 R-2(3) can only be determined and awarded
by the court which had ordered the issuance of the injunction and not by a court to which
the suit has been transferred.
AIR 1914 Calcutta 815
O-39 R-2 SEC.150 OF CPC
- Breach of injunction business of the court granting the injunction transferring to
another court later court can entertain petition.
- Transfer-includes transfer of business under civil courts Act. The word transfer in Sec
150 is not applicable to a case where the District judge fixed the jurisdiction of court
under the civil courts act and transferred the whole of the business within a certain area of

AIR 1923 Madras 92
O-39 R-2 (3)
- Civil courts have no jurisdiction to take action against a person not party to suit.
However, high court has such jurisdiction.
1988 CLC 1370 LAH
PLD 1964 Daaca 276
PLD 1975 LAH 126
O-39 R-2(3)
- No person is bound to obey a direction which is unlawful nor can he be held liable for
refusing to obey it
PLD 1975 LAH 126
O-39, R-2(3) read with
W.P Land Revenue act sec .81&
Constitution Art.204;187, contempt of court act 1976 sec.6.
- Contempt against public servants who discharge their official duties and pass order
adversely affecting the right of one party was disapproved and condemned by Supreme
- Stay/injunction must be clear leaving no room for ambiguity.
- Govt. officials should not be summoned in contempt proceedings when they are not
the main party in the suit.
PLD 1995 SC 572
O-39, R-4-A
- No successive stay orders can be issued.
1984 CLC 2048 KAR
- Payment of govt. dues - stay orders stay granted by high court till disposal of
petition-order to that extent would be read as contemplating disposal of the petition with
six months.
1989 CLC 1160
O-41, R-27
- Addl. Evidence cannot be to fill up lacuna in the case can be read only when(i)
requested by court (ii) for proper adjudication.
1995 CLC 1889
O.XIII, R.1 & 2.
- It is mandatory for the parties to file all documents at the first date of hearing.
Discretion in Rule 2 is subject to condition of good cause
Muhammad Musa
Hamid Ali
2012 CLC 254 (Baluchistan)