2006 PLP 1631 (MLD)
ABDUL WAHID — Petitioner Versus AMIRAN BIBI — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1631 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID — Petitioner Versus AMIRAN BIBI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1631 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1631 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1631 (MLD) (ABDUL WAHID — Petitioner Versus AMIRAN BIBI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioner.
- Ch. Zamir Ahmad Khan for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and appeal against judgment of the Trial Court was also dismissed by Appellate Court
Application moved by defendants before Appellate Court remained unattended and same was not disposed of by Appellate Court while passing final impugned judgment
Any application moved before the Court of first instance or Appellate Court, was required to be disposed of in accordance with law before passing the final judgment and failure to advert to and decide same would amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction
Impugned judgment and decree of Appellate Court were set aside and case was remanded to it for deciding appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after disposal of said application.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.
Suit of the plaintiffs (hereinafter called respondents Nos. 1 and 2) instituted against the defendants including the petitioners to the effect that Mutations Nos. 802 and 803 attested on 24-9-1963 and subsequent Mutations Nos. 818 and 834, dated 16-12-1963 qua the suit-land are liable to be set aside being contrary to law and facts and by way of consequential relief, the possession of the suit land (detailed in the plaint) was also prayed for. This suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 17-1-1988 and appeal against the same preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan vide judgment and decree, dated 16-5-1989.
2. Instant revision petition calls-in-question the aforesaid judgments and decrees.
3. Arguments heard. Record Perused.
4. Undeniably, an application was moved by the petitioners before the learned District Judge on 13-11-1988 with the following main assertion incorporated in its para No.2:
Urdu Page 1632 This application remained unattended and the same was not disposed of by the learned District Judge while passing the final judgment (impugned herein). This has been repeatedly held that any application moved before the Court of first instance or lower Appellate Court, same is required to be disposed of in accordance with law before passing the final judgment and "failure to advert to and decide the same amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction". Reference can be made to PLD 1983 Lahore 349 (Mst. Umari and another v. Faqir Muhammad and another).
5. In view of the above, instant revision petition stands allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge and the case is remanded to him for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after disposal of the afore-said application. It is desired that this being an old case be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-136/L Revision allowed.