1987 PLP 1482 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1482 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S. 18 as amended by Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (Amendment) Act (V of 1986)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 24‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction being beyond Rs. Fifty thousand, appeal was filed before High Court before promulgation of Ordinance V of 1986‑‑On promulgation of Ordinance VI of 1986 appeal was transferred by High Court to District Judge‑‑Application for re‑transfer of appeal to High Court dismissed‑‑Contention of petitioners that they had a vested right to have their appeal heard and decided by High Court and that amendment made by Act V of 1986 in West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance was not retrospective, repelled as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in 1987 S C M R 978‑‑Provisions of S . 24, C . P . C . , furthermore expressly empowered High Court of its own motion without notice to parties to transfer any appeal pending before it for disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to dispose of the same‑‑Petitioner could not claim vested right in derogation of statutory power of High Court under S.24, C.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal, and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1482 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1482 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S. 18 as amended by Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (Amendment) Act (V of 1986)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 24‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction being beyond Rs. Fifty thousand, appeal was filed before High Court before promulgation of Ordinance V of 1986‑‑On promulgation of Ordinance VI of 1986 appeal was transferred by High Court to District Judge‑‑Application for re‑transfer of appeal to High Court dismissed‑‑Contention of petitioners that they had a vested right to have their appeal heard and decided by High Court and that amendment made by Act V of 1986 in West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance was not retrospective, repelled as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in 1987 S C M R 978‑‑Provisions of S . 24, C . P . C . , furthermore expressly empowered High Court of its own motion without notice to parties to transfer any appeal pending before it for disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to dispose of the same‑‑Petitioner could not claim vested right in derogation of statutory power of High Court under S.24, C.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal, and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1482 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nabi Ahmad Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- S.M. Zubair, A.A.‑G. for Respondent on notice.
- Date of hearing: 12th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 15‑2‑1987 of the Lahore High Court passed in T. A. No. 94‑L of 1987). ‑‑‑S. 18 [as amended by Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (Amendment) Act (V of 1986)]‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 24‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction being beyond Rs. Fifty thousand, appeal was filed before High Court before promulgation of Ordinance V of 1986‑‑On promulgation of Ordinance VI of 1986 appeal was transferred by High Court to District Judge‑‑Application for re‑transfer of appeal to High Court dismissed‑‑Contention of petitioners that they had a vested right to have their appeal heard and decided by High Court and that amendment made by Act V of 1986 in West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance was not retrospective, repelled as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in 1987 S C M R 978‑‑Provisions of S . 24, C . P . C . , furthermore expressly empowered High Court of its own motion without notice to parties to transfer any appeal pending before it for disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to dispose of the same‑‑Petitioner could not claim vested right in derogation of statutory power of High Court under S.24, C.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave appeal the respondent filed a suit for preemption. The value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs.1,60,000/‑. The suit w; decreed by the trial Court on 3‑12‑1984. On this date an appeal fro a decree of a Civil Judge lay before the District Judge if the value of the original suit did not exceed Rs.50,9000/‑. Accordingly, the petitioners lodged their appeal in the High Court. While this appeal was pending Act V of 1986 came unto force. This Act amended Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance by raising the appellate jurisdiction the District Judges upto an amount of Rs.2,00,000/‑. Thereupon the High Court by an order presumably made under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code transferred the petitioner's appeal to the District Judge, Bahawalnagar for disposal. The, petitioners moved an application before the High Court for the re‑transfer of the appeal to its off file. This application was dismissed bow a learned Single Judge. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Sing Judge.
2. In support of this petition two contentions have been raised namely, (1) the petitioners have a vested right to have their appeal hear and decided by the High Court, and (2) the amendment made by Act V f 1986 in the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance is not retrospective.
3. We find little merit in either of these two contentions. The were considered and rejected by this Court in Bashir v. Wazir A (1987 SCMR 978). Apart from that, Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly empowers the High Courts of its own motion without notice to the parties to transfer any appeal pending before it is disposal to any Court subordinate to it a d competent to dispose the same. It is not disputed that at the time when the High Coin made the order of transfer the District Judge at Bahawalnagar was competent to dispose of the petitioners' appeal. The petitioners cannot claim a vested right in derogation of this statutory power of the High Court. We would accordingly dismiss this petition. A . A . / K‑17/ S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed