1976 PLP 388 (SCMR)
NASIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 388 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali. C. J. and Muhammad Gul. J |
| Parties | NASIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 388 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 388 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali. C. J. and Muhammad Gul. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 388 (SCMR) (NASIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on. Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 14th November 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdadul Jadid, dated 22‑4‑1974 in F. A. O. No. 36 of 1973). ‑‑‑‑‑ S. 101(2) & O. XLI, rr. 24 & 33‑Appeal‑Appellate Court, powers of‑Appellate Court invested with same powers as Court below‑‑Sufficient material existing on record, appellate Court may itself decide issue nod determined by first Court.‑(Appeal (civil)].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.‑In an appeal in a pre‑emption suit the District Judge set aside the finding of the trial Judge on issue No. 4 pertaining to value of improvements made by the vendee and remanded the case for fresh trial but without adjudicating upon two other issues which had been answered in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent. In a second appeal, a learned Judge in the High Court has, instead of interfering with the remand order, himself examined the evidence led by the parties on issues Nos. 1 and 5 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that the order passed by the District Judge had resulted in prejudice to his client inssm6ch as the High Court did not have the advantage of knowing how the District judge would have resolved these issues. The contention raised is without any substance‑ The Civil Procedure Code specifically invests an appellate Court with the same powers as the Court below there are also provisions in Order XLI, C. P. C. to the effect that if there be sufficient material on the record the appellate Court may itself decide an issue which has not been determined by the first Court. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.