P L D 1966 (W (PLP)
SAEED AKHTAR SIDDIQUI‑Petitioner Versus ARBAB HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Faizullah Khan, J |
| Parties | SAEED AKHTAR SIDDIQUI‑Petitioner Versus ARBAB HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Faizullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 (W (PLP) (SAEED AKHTAR SIDDIQUI‑Petitioner Versus ARBAB HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Karimullah Khan Durrani for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Afzal Khan for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 28th January 1966.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLIV, r. 1, proviso, read with O. XLI, r. 31 and S. 115‑Application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis‑Jurisdiction of appellate Court to grant such application conditional on being satisfied that judgment and decree suffer from one or more infirmities mentioned in proviso to r. 1 of O. XLIV‑Order of appellate Court rejecting application without recording reasons therefore‑Revisable under S. 115.
Judgment & Decree
It would be observed that the language of the proviso in most unequivocal terms states that the Court shall reject the applica tion unless on perusing the judgment and decree it sees reasons to think that the decree is:‑
(1) contrary to law, (2) or some usage having the force of law, (3) or is otherwise erroneous; (4) or is unjust. To put it differently, the jurisdiction of the appellate Court to grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis is conditional on its being satisfied that the judgment and decree suffer from any one or more of the four infirmities referred to above. The appellate'' Court is, therefore, under statutory obligation to record its, reasons for granting leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The proviso was introduced to achieve two‑fold object. One of the objects was a safeguard against scrupulous litigant in dragging the successful party into Court. Which necessarily entails inconvenience and expense. The second object which is equally important, if not more important, is the safeguard against loss of Revenue to the exchequer. These being the objects of the proviso, it is obligatory on the' appellate Court to record reasons, though very briefly, for granting leave to appeal in forma pauperis and failure to do so would clearly amount to refusal to exercise jurisdiction within the meaning of clause (b) of section 115, C. P. C.
3. There is another aspect of the case and it is that under rule 31, Order XLI, C. P. C. the appellate Court is required to write a speaking order stating:‑
(a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; (d) ...... Since in the instant case the appellate Court has not at all applied his mind to the proviso, it will be deemed to have acted "with material irregularity" within the meaning of clause (c) of section 115, C. P. C.
4. To sum up, the failure of the appellate Court in allowing the respondent to appeal in forma pauperis without recording the reasons as contemplated by the proviso as also by rule 31 Order XLI, C. P. C. renders the order revisable under section 115, C. P. C.
5. For all the foregoing reasons, I accept the revision petition and remit the case to the District Judge who should hear the case himself or entrust it to any other Additional District Judge other than Mr. M. E. Hayat for decision whether the conditions provided by the proviso are satisfied. The finding of the Appellate Court that Arbab Hussain respondent was a pauper is, however, maintained. Costs to follow the events. S. A. H./S. Q. Petition accepted.