P L D 1966 Dacca 150 (PLP)
S. N. GUPTA & Co.‑Plaintiffs‑Applicants Versus SADANANDA GHOSE AND OTHERS‑Defendants‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 Dacca 150 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | S. M. Murshed, C. J. and Abu Md. Abdulla, J |
| Parties | S. N. GUPTA & Co.‑Plaintiffs‑Applicants Versus SADANANDA GHOSE AND OTHERS‑Defendants‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 Dacca 150 (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 Dacca 150 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: S. M. Murshed, C. J. and Abu Md. Abdulla, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 Dacca 150 (PLP) (S. N. GUPTA & Co.‑Plaintiffs‑Applicants Versus SADANANDA GHOSE AND OTHERS‑Defendants‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. K. Sen for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 109 & 110‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court ‑ First appeal before High Court in suit valued at Rs. 70,000‑Judgment delivered during interregnum between abrogation of Constitution of Pakistan (1956) and coining into force of Constitution of Pakistan (1962) Application for leave to appeal against such judgment under Ss. 109 & 110, C. P. C. can be pressed as a matter of right- Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Arts. 157 & 158‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58. (b) Interpretation of statutes-Enactment is presumed to be prospective until contrary proved‑Right already accrued‑Cannot be wiped out by subsequent alteration in law‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art.
250. Hamidul Huq Chowdhury, D. C. Bhattacharjee and A. K. M. Nurul Islam for the Opposite‑Party.
Judgment & Decree
MURSHED, C. J.‑This application is in respect of an appeal against a judgment of this Court which had decided adversely to the applicant on appeal from a suit valued at about Rs. 70,
000. The judgment of this Court was given in a First Appeal reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court below. At the hearing of this application both‑parties were represent ed before us and we were addressed at length with regard to the merits of the application. Ultimately the learned Advocate for the appellant fell back upon the provisions of law which confers a right in the application to such an appeal. In such event we cannot refuse the application. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, it is contended, are applicable in toto inasmuch as the judgment of this Court disposing of the aforesaid appeal before us was given prior to the coming into force of the present Constitution and at a time when the Constitution of 1956 was abrogated. The judgment pronounced by this Court was delivered in 1961 shortly before the commence ment of the present Constitution. It was argued in opposition to the application that by virtue of the provision of the present Constitution, the applicant was not entitled to press for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. The short answer to this argument is that the right to appeal accrued prior to the commencement of the present Constitution. It is a cardinal article of interpretations that an enactment is presumed to be prospective until the contrary is proved. Furthermore, an altered law with regard to a particular subject does not wipe out rights which have accrued prior to its passing. The provisions of Article 250 of the present Constitution, specifically embodies such well‑accepted cannons of interpretation. The right of appeal had vested in the applicant and even if the provision of the present Constitution did not give him such right, it would be of no avail against him. Article 250 makes that position clear. We' therefore, hold that the applicant is entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of right and leave as prayed for is, therefore, granted without any order as to costs, to this application. ABU MD. ABDULLA, J.‑I agree. K. B. A. Petition accepted.