1981 PLP 200 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD YUSAF AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus HAKIM ALI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 200 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YUSAF AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus HAKIM ALI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 200 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 200 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 200 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD YUSAF AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus HAKIM ALI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Petitioners.
- Rana Abdur Rahlm for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 16th March 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)‑ Ss. 10 & 14‑Civii Judge‑ Jurisdiction‑High Court not issuing any notification curtailing jurisdiction of Civil Judge‑Pre‑emption that his jurisdiction extended over entire District‑Any direction issued by High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction authorising Civil Judge to hold Court at a specified place, held, could not override provisions of S. 1C(2) conferring jurisdiction on Civil, Judge over entire District including such specified place.‑[Jurisdiction]. (b) Words said phrases‑ Term "Judge" usually identified with term "Court" and both expressions used interchangeably. (c) West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)‑ S. 14‑Terms "Court" and "Judge"‑To be construed in context of statutes in which used‑Scheme of Civil Courts Ordinance and heading of S. 14 thereof, held, amply demonstrate term "Court" being identified with its Presiding Officer.‑[Words and phrases]. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ O. XXI, r. 10 & S. 115‑Execution of decree ordered by Civil Judge allegedly in unusual haste‑Merit of speedy justice though to be appreciated yet tendency to precipitate action could not earn confidence of litigants, such being foundation of a successful judicial system‑Executing Court having jurisdiction, any error in exercise of such jurisdiction, held, can furnish valid ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Words said phrases‑ Term "Judge" usually identified with term "Court" and both expressions used interchangeably. (c) West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)‑ S. 14‑Terms "Court" and "Judge"‑To be construed in context of statutes in which used‑Scheme of Civil Courts Ordinance and heading of S. 14 thereof, held, amply demonstrate term "Court" being identified with its Presiding Officer.‑[Words and phrases]. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ O. XXI, r. 10 & S. 115‑Execution of decree ordered by Civil Judge allegedly in unusual haste‑Merit of speedy justice though to be appreciated yet tendency to precipitate action could not earn confidence of litigants, such being foundation of a successful judicial system‑Executing Court having jurisdiction, any error in exercise of such jurisdiction, held, can furnish valid ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Petitioners. Rana Abdur Rahlm for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for Respondent No.