P L D 1994 Lahore 373 (PLP)
Sh. MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PUBLIC‑AT‑LARGE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1994 Lahore 373 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PUBLIC‑AT‑LARGE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Lahore 373 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Lahore 373 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Lahore 373 (PLP) (Sh. MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PUBLIC‑AT‑LARGE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Amin Lone for Appellants
Headnotes / Summary
Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 384 & 388‑‑‑Punjab Government Notification No.781, dated 17‑7‑1914‑‑ Succession Certificate‑‑‑Appeal against rejection of application for grant of Succession Certificate‑‑‑Forum‑‑‑Order within meaning of S.384, Succession Act, 1925 was passed by a Court inferior to that of District Judge‑‑‑Forum of appeal‑‑‑Where any order was passed by a Court subordinate to District Judge, then an appeal from that order granting, refusing or revoking a Succession Certificate by such Court would tic to the District Judge and not to the High Court‑‑.Punjab Government Notification No.781 dated 17‑7‑1914, had invested the subordinate Judges of the first and second class with, functions of a District Court‑‑‑Regardless of the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction, any order passed under the delegated authority under S.388, Succession Act, 1925, by a Civil Judge was susceptible to an appeal to the District Judge and not directly to the High Court‑‑‑Appeal against order of Civil Judge having been directly fled before High court was returned for its presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction.‑‑[Appeal (civil). Rattan Singh and others v. Raj Singh and another AIR 1920 Lah. 497 and Jagram Das v. Mangal Das AIR 1917 Lah. 276 ref.
Judgment & Decree
From the combined operation of sections 388 and 384 of the Succession Act, 1925, it dearly follows that where an order within the meaning of section 384 of the Act was passed by a Court inferior to that of the District Judge within the meaning of subsections (1) and (2) of section 388, then an appeal from an order granting, refusing or revoking a succession certificate passed by such Judge shall lie to the District Judge and not to the High Court. In the territory of Punjab, the Local Government has by a Notification in the official Gazette invested the subordinate Judges of the first and second class with the functions of a District Court. The Notification is referred to in Rattan' Singh and others v. Raj Singh and another AIR 1920 Lahore
497. In Jagram. Das v. Mangal Das AIR 1917 Lahore 276, it was held that an appeal against an order of the Senior Subordinate Judge rejecting an application for succession certificate lies to the District Court and not to the High Court. Office brought to my notice a copy of Punjab Gazette, July 17, 1914 which contained Notification No.781 on the subject. Photo‑copy is placed on file. Therefore, regardless of the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction, an order passed under the delegated authority under section 388 of Succession Act, 1925 by a Civil Judge' was susceptible to an appeal to the District Judge and not directly to the High Court. Upon this view, appeal is returned to the appellants for its representation to the Court of competent jurisdiction. AA./M‑1530/L Order accordingly,