2016 PLP 248 (GBLR)
BABAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 248 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BABAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 248 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 248 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 248 (GBLR) (BABAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate for Petitioner.
- Munir Ahmed, Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.---Malik Shafqat Wali Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court without considering the legal position has allowed amendments in the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. which was upheld by the learned District Judge vide order dated 22.05.2013 in Civil Revision No. 21/2012. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order filed Writ Petition No. 61/2013 before the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, who passed order in one line and the petition was dismissed in limine without giving any reason vide order dated 27.08.2013, which is against the natural justice.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VI, R. 17 & S. 151
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60
Scope
Trial Court allowed amendment in the plaint, which having been upheld by appellate court below in civil revision, plaintiff had filed writ petition, which was also dismissed in limine without giving any reason by the Chief Court
Impugned order of Chief Court was not a speaking order as no reason had been given while dismissing writ petition in limine
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed
Order of Chief Court was set aside and remanded with direction to hear the parties afresh, and decide the same on its merits.
Judgment & Decree
DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.
Malik Shafqat Wali Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court without considering the legal position has allowed amendments in the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. which was upheld by the learned District Judge vide order dated 22.05.2013 in Civil Revision No. 21/2012. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order filed Writ Petition No. 61/2013 before the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, who passed order in one line and the petition was dismissed in limine without giving any reason vide order dated 27.08.2013, which is against the natural justice.
2. He further contends that two (02) independent transactions had been undertaken between the parties i.e. one transaction between one Muhammad Jami and the respondent while the other transaction between the petitioner and one Kareem Ullah Khan, as such two independent cause of actions arisen in different occasions. The present respondents tried to engage the petitioner in the subsequent transaction which cannot be sustained as the subsequent transaction has a new cause of action which is not disputed. He finally contends that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2013 which is not tenable in law hence, the same is required to be set aside.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order of the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He submits that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition of the petitioner as the same was filed against order dated 22.05.2012 passed in Civil Revision No. 21/2012 which was not maintainable. He finally submits that the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court may graciously be maintained being well reasoned and well founded.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. In our considered view the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 is not a speaking order as no reasons have been given while dismissing Writ Petition in limine.
5. In view of the above discussions, we convert this petition into an appeal and the same is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court to hear the parties afresh whereafter decide the same on its own merits.
6. The petition is allowed in above terms. HBT/96/GB Case remanded.