1994 PLP 1991 (SCMR)
Mian MUHAMMAD LUQMAN end 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FARIDA KHANAM and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1991 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD LUQMAN end 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FARIDA KHANAM and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1991 (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 1994 PLP 1991 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1991 (SCMR) (Mian MUHAMMAD LUQMAN end 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FARIDA KHANAM and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Asadullah Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 20‑2‑1991 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 151 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)=‑‑Application for summoning of a Handwriting Expert during pendency of suit‑‑‑Nature of Trial Court's order on the application was such that prima facie it did not constitute "a case decided"‑‑‑Unless order passed by Court is "a case decided" High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with such matter in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑High Court's order in question, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction being without jurisdiction and not warranted was set aside in circumstances‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed.
Judgment & Decree
Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Asadullah Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1991. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Leave to appeal having been sought against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents' Civil Revision which had arisen out of an interlocutory order passed in a pending suit, at a preliminary hearing; after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents on the legal point involved, this petition was converted into appeal. Now it has been heard as an appeal.
2. The petitioners/plaintiffs' side during the pendency of their suit for specific performance of contract applied for the summoning of a handwriting expert. This application, it has been assumed, was allowed by the order impugned before the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The nature of this order is such that prima facie it did not constitute "a case decided". It was doubtful whether the application was at all allowed because the learned trial Judge had also observed that in the interest of justice the disputed writing and signatures be retained on the file with a view to comparison" either with a naked eye if the Court so required or to send the same for expert's examination." Otherwise too it is doubtful whether in case an expert would have been summoned as prayed from the petitioner's side the order of summoning of expert would have constituted "a case decided".
3. It is not denied by the respondents' learned counsel that unless it is "a case decided " the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. to deal with the matter on civil Revisional side. On the specific point; whether, the order passed in this case by the trial Court which was impugned before the High Court did constitute a "case decided" the learned counsel, although having remained for considerable time hesitant to admit that it did not constitute "a case decided", ultimately failed to satisfy the Court that it did constitute "a case decided".
4. Obviously, the order was not such so as to empower the High Court to assume civil Revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
5. That being so, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A./M‑1992/S Appeal accepted.