2020 PLP 14 (CLCN)
KHALID SIKANDAR and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KAMALIA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 14 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALID SIKANDAR and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KAMALIA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 14 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 14 (CLCN)?
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: 2020 PLP 14 (CLCN) (KHALID SIKANDAR and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KAMALIA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Mehmood Chaudhary for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VI, Rr. 17
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Application for amendment of written statement
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Non-availability of right of appeal
Effect
Petitioners assailed orders of courts below whereby their application to amend written statement was dismissed
Where legislature had not given the right of appeal or revision against the orders impugned through the constitutional petition, exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution as an appellate jurisdiction would be to circumvent the intention of the legislature
For invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, the petitioners were bound to show some jurisdictional defect committed by the courts below while deciding the matter in issue
Petitioners could not point out either any jurisdictional defect, perversity in the orders passed by the courts below or establish any exceptional circumstances for exercising constitutional jurisdiction
Constitutional petition, having no force, was dismissed in limine.
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
High Court can exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Art. 199 of the Constitution in some appropriate and exceptional circumstances when a case is made out that the forums/courts below have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in them by law or failed to exercise the jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.
Through this writ petition petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kamalia whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the order of learned trial court dated 14.11.2018 whereby an application for permission to amend the written statement filed by the petitioners-defendants in a suit for declaration was dismissed.
2. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the position that how the orders passed by both the courts below are without jurisdiction as through this writ petition the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Learned counsel though argued the matter but was unable to respond the query of this Court. Learned counsel has relied upon "Gulzar Ahmad v. Additional District Judge and others" (2019 CLC 1432).
3. I have gone through the case law cited by learned counsel and consulted the record appended with this writ petition.
4. The basic question is that this Court can exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in some appropriate and exceptional circumstances when a case is made out that the forums/courts below have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in them by law or failed to exercise the jurisdiction. Case of such nature has not been made out.
5. When maintainability of Writ Petition is questioned, it is often heard in response from the learned counsel that Sir, when no other remedy is available, therefore, petitioners have no option except to file writ petition. I am afraid it is not the proper response. I am clear in my mind that when legislature has not given right of appeal or revision against the orders impugned through the writ petition, exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as an appellate jurisdiction will be to circumvent the intention of the legislature. When against an order where application for permission to amend the pleadings is decided, no appeal is provided and revisional jurisdiction has already been exercised, no other remedy under the law is available and the thought that remedy of constitutional jurisdiction is synonymous to appeal, review or revisional jurisdiction is a misconception.
6. For invoking constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners were bound to show some jurisdictional defect committed by the Courts below while deciding the matter in issue through the impugned orders but the learned counsel could not point out either any jurisdictional defect, perversity in the orders passed by the courts below or establish any exceptional circumstances for exercising constitutional jurisdiction. The case law referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case. I have no reason to disagree with the learned two courts below. Resultantly this writ petition having no force stands dismissed in limine. SA/K-19/L Petition dismissed.