1990 PLP 1499 (CLC)
Before Ch. Amjad Khan, J Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1499 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore. |
| Bench Members | Ch. Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | Before Ch. Amjad Khan, J Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1499 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1499 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore. bench comprising: Ch. Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1499 (CLC) (Before Ch. Amjad Khan, J Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Khalil Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Qzair Chughtai for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th December, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Discretionary orders of Courts emanating from fanciful or arbitrary exercise of power conferred by law, would be amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Where, discretion exercised by Appellate Court was far from being arbitrary or fanciful, same was incapable of being interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. PLD 1970 SC139; PLD 1983 SC53 and1986 CLC 2212 re1. ]
Judgment & Decree
PLD 1970 SC139; PLD 1983 SC53 and1986 CLC 2212 re
1. Qazi Khalil Ahmad for Petitioner. ] Muhammad Qzair Chughtai for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th December, 1989. Petitioner's application for grant of leave, under Rule 2 (2) of Order XXXVII of the C.P.C., to defend the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,wc' on the basis of denial of execution of the pronote sued upon, despite absence of any plausible explanation, succeeded in soliciting the desired leave by the order, dated 2‑7‑1989 on the condition of his depositing in cash half of the sum in suit or providing Bank guarantee for the same alongwith a personal surety for the remaining half before the next date, fixed as 21‑9‑1989. In passing this order learned District Judge took particular notice of absence of explanation with regard to thumb‑impressions appearing on the pronote, if they happened to be his and still granted leave on the aforementioned condition. No doubt, therein he wisely exercised the discretion vested in him by law to strike balance between two extremes capable of emerging in result of trial.
2. Considering himself aggrieved of such a treatment, defendant has a invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court which can actually be available to be exercised for interference in discretionary orders of such character as may) happen to result from fanciful or arbitrary exercise of power conferred by law (P L D 1970 SC 139 and P L D 1983 SC 53). Reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on 1986 C L C 2212, though not wrong, is inapt in the circumstances of this case for the reason of its being a mere repetition of the rule enunciated in the' Supreme Court case. Real point of distinction in this case is that the discretion exercised by learned District Judge is far from being arbitrary or fanciful and is, thus, incapable of being interfered with in exercise of revisional power.
3. In result of the foregoing there is no merit found in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. A.A./M‑2095/L Revision declined