P (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MAHASIN ALI and others‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHID MRIDHA‑Opposite Party
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ellis and Ahmad, JJ. |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MAHASIN ALI and others‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHID MRIDHA‑Opposite Party |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ellis and Ahmad, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MAHASIN ALI and others‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHID MRIDHA‑Opposite Party). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khagendra Chandra Kar, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 13 and 140‑No provision in Chapter X for reference of public nuisance to arbitration. Under Chapter X of the Code a conditional order under section 133 of the Code can only be made absolute according to actions 136, 137 and 139 of the Code. There is no provision in the Chapter for any reference of a public nuisance to arbitration, and no provision for the malting of a conditional order absolute as a result of the finding of the arbitration. Kafiluddin Chaudhry, for Opposite Party.
Judgment & Decree
Khagendra Chandra Kar, for Petitioner. Kafiluddin Chaudhry, for Opposite Party. Ellis, J.‑
This rule must be made absolute. It is directed against an order of Mr. S. A. Matin, Magistrate of the First Class of Dacca, dated the 16th November, 1948, making absolute and conditional order under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings under section 133 were started over an alleged con struction of a Public Water Passage. The parties duly appeared in the proceedings but before any evidence was taken, the matter was referred to the arbitration of the Local President of the Union Board by a joint Petition filed by both the parties on the 10th of September, 1948. The offending order of the learned Magistrate was passed in terms of the finding of the arbitrator. Mr. Khagendra Chandra Kar has appeared before us in support of the rule and has drawn our attention to the fact that under Chapter X o the Code a conditional order under section 133 of the Code can only be made absolute according to sections 136, 137 and 139 of the Code. There is no provision in the Chapter for any reference of a public nuisance to arbitration, and no provision for the making of a conditional order abso lute as a result of the finding of the arbitration. There is no answer to this argument. In the present case there is also the difficulty that although there is on record a joint petition filed by both the parties on the 10th September, 1948, for a reference to arbitration, the particular clause in the petition by which the parties under-took to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, has been penned through. Relevant comment on this has been made both by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The order of the learned Magistrate dated the 15th November, 1948, and his order under section 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code are set aside. Ahmad, J.‑