1989 PLP 1099 (MLD)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908)

S.99--Judgment--Non-mentioning of number and title of suit does not render judgment illegal. Ch. Arshad Mahmood for Petitioners. Pir S.A. Rashid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1989. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 2-3-1987 whereby the learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree, dated 21-6-1986 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur and remanded the case to the learned trial Court with the direction to proceed with the suit after complying with the provisions of Order XIII, Rule 4, C.P.C. but that the case shall be decided otherwise on the same record. The objection which weighed with the learned appellate Court was that four documents exhibited on record were not exhibited strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Order XIII, Rule 4, C.P.C. The learned trial Judge marked the exhibit number, appended signatures and affixed his seal on each document. The other particulars mentioned in Rule 4 of Order XIII, C.P.C. were however not entered and recorded. This non-compliance was considered to be fatal and relying on the case of Malik Murid Ahmad v. Faiz Muhammad (1982 C L C 1949) the judgment and decree was set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly the judgment in the case of Murid Ahmad (supra) is distinguishable as in the said case the mark of exhibit appears to have been made in the hand of the Reader of the Court only. Moreover mere non-compliance of technicalities of law is to be given importance if these have resulted into miscarriage of justice. No such thing was even remotely suggested in the instant case. It has been repeatedly held that non compliance of technical provision is not fatal and does not render the judgment A passed illegal. (See Muhammad Sultan v. Arshad Ali and two others (P L D 1987 Lah. 468), Muhammad Tufail v. Muhammad Ashiq and three others (1987 C L C 2151), Hakim Khan v. Aurangzeb and another (P L D 1975 Lah. 1170) and Muhammad Akbar Khan etc. v. Said Khan (P L D 1978 S C (AJ&K) 6. This situation is fully covered by the provisions of section 99, C.P.C. The other submission that the revisional jurisdiction is not attracted was sought to be supported by Mst. Husni alias Husna Begum and two others v. Nayyar Oayyum (1987 C L C 2485). The refusal of the learned appellate Court to hear and decide the appeal on merits amounts to refusing to exercise jurisdiction. This refusal to exercise jurisdiction was made arbitrarily and ignoring the law declared in the aforecited precedents and by following a judgment which was inapplicable. Such a jurisdictional error merits to be corrected in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. B The mere non-mentioning of the number and title of the suit etc. does not render the judgment passed illegal. There was no confusion as to the documents produced on record, and the irregularity pointed out was not fatal. The learned appellate Court acting under section 99, C.P.C. should have proceeded to determine the appeal on merits. 3. For the reasons given above this revision is accepted and the judgment, dated 2-3-1987 is hereby set aside. The appeal shall be treated to be pending and shall be disposed of on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law within a period of three months. The parties are directed to appear on 20-3-1989 before the learned District Judge Kasur who may dispose of the appeal himself or transfer it to any other Additional District Judge for disposal. M.Y.H./F-111/L Case remanded,