1980 PLP 965 (SCMR)
NIAZ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. NOORI-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 965 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | - S. 113---Revision-High Court admitting petition only to examine effect of Appellate Court's failure to discuss issue relating to Valuation of suit for purpose of court-fee-Order of High Court refusing to suspend impugned judgment and decree--Held, discretionary and case not a fit one for consideration in Supreme Court.-Injunction. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | NIAZ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. NOORI-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 965 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 965 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the - S. 113---Revision-High Court admitting petition only to examine effect of Appellate Court's failure to discuss issue relating to Valuation of suit for purpose of court-fee-Order of High Court refusing to suspend impugned judgment and decree--Held, discretionary and case not a fit one for consideration in Supreme Court.-Injunction. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 965 (SCMR) (NIAZ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. NOORI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Cheema, Advocate with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 13th February 1980.
- Nazir Ahmad Cheema, Advocate with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 28-1-1980 in C. M. 430-C/80 in Civil Revision No. 80-D/80). - S. 113
Revision-High Court admitting petition only to examine effect of Appellate Court's failure to discuss issue relating to Valuation of suit for purpose of court-fee-Order of High Court refusing to suspend impugned judgment and decree--Held, discretionary and case not a fit one for consideration in Supreme Court.-[Injunction].
Judgment & Decree
SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 28‑1‑1980 whereby while admitting a civil revision petition filed by the petitioner the Court refused to suspend the order under consideration.
2. The respondent had challenged an alienation. Her father had alienated agricultural land in Kasur in favour of the petitioner. The suit was contested. A number of issues were framed and the trial Court dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred by the respondent which succeeded and the necessary declaration was granted. The petitioner filed a revision petition is the Lahore High Court and along with the revision petition by another application he prayed for the suspension of the order of the District Judge, Kasur. The learned Judge in the High Court examined the case, found no force in the other contentions of the petitioner but admitted the petition only to examine the effect of the District Judge failing to discuss issue No. 3 relating to the valuation of the suit far the purposes of court‑fee. The trial Court had' recorded the finding that it was not properly stamped. The District Judge had not specifically dealt with the finding and without giving a finding on it had decreed the suit of the plaintiff‑respondent. Ass regards the prayer made by the petitioner with regard to the suspension of the order the learned Judge iii the High Court stated in the order that: "Since the petition had been admitted to regular hearing on a technical ground, therefore, I do not find it a fit case to suspend the operation of the impugned judgment and decree."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the first place he is not debarred on such an admission order from agitating the other grounds which have been considered and did not at the admitting stage find favour with the learned Judge. Further, it is stated that as even the question of court‑fee may entail the rejection of the plaint the order under consideration should have been suspended.
4. It is clear to us that the order passed by the High Court is discretionary order. As the question era which the learned Judge proceeded to admit the petition concerned the court‑fee, he could refuse to suspend " the order under examination, because unless it were shown that there was a contumacy on the part of the plaintiff the rectification could take placed even after an adverse finding had been recorded with regard to it. We do not consider that it is a fit case for consideration in this Court and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.