1979 PLP '553 (CLC)
RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS-Appellants Versus Syed MAZHAR ALI SHAH Arm 2 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP '553 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aftab Hussain, J |
| Parties | RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS-Appellants Versus Syed MAZHAR ALI SHAH Arm 2 OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code 1V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP '553 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code 1V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP '553 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aftab Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP '553 (CLC) (RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS-Appellants Versus Syed MAZHAR ALI SHAH Arm 2 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khurshld Ahmad for Appellants.
- Ch. Inayatullah for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 29th May 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 96-Sanction of Provincial Government not a general sanction authorising Collector to pass an order under S. 93-Sanction of Provincial Government to be given in each case-Appellants, held, failed to prove a prima facie case in absence of sanction from Provincial Government-Appeal dismissed.-[Appeal (civil]. Prem Narain v. Ram Charan and others A 1 R 1932 P C 51 and Acharya Duvendra Prasadji v. Tirathdas P L D 1972 Kar. 251 rel.
Judgment & Decree
The appellants' suit under section 92, which in fact is under section 93 of the C. P. C. had been filed with the sanction of the Collector only and not with the sanction of the Provincial Government. Their application for temporary injunction was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had not been able to make out a prima facie case. The learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi came to the same finding on the ground that since the sanction of the Provincial Government had not been obtained, the suit under section 93 was not competent. The only question, therefore, is whether the Provincial Government's sanction is also necessary for filing of the suit. Section 93 provides that the powers conferred by sections 91 and 92 on the Advocate-General may be with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government, exercised also by the Collector or by such officer as the Provincial Government may appoint in this behalf. The underlined'" word 'also' makes it clear that the sanction must not be only by the Collector but also by the Provincial Government. This view taken in Prem Naraira v. Ram Charan and others (AIR 1932 P C 51) 1t was held that "in their Lordships' opinion section 93 provides for two distinct matters ; the appointment of an officer to exercise the powers conferred by sections 91 and 92 on the Advocate General and the previous sanction of the Local Government to the exercise of such powers : In each case both the appointment and the previous sanction of the Local Government to the exercise of these powers are necessary before the provisions of section 93 can be utilised."
2. The words underlined by me makes it clear that the sanction of the Provincial Government is not a general sanction authorising the Collector to pass an order under section
93. That sanction should be given in each case. This view was reiterated in Acharya Davendra Prasadji v. Tirathdas (P L D 1972 Kar. 251) There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the appellants had failed to prove that they had a prima facie case in the absence of sanction from the Provincial Government.
3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties shall bear their, own costs. Appeal dismissed.