2022 PLP 1187 (YLR)
MUNAZIR ALI RANJHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AHMAD SAQIB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 1187 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUNAZIR ALI RANJHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AHMAD SAQIB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1187 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 1187 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 1187 (YLR) (MUNAZIR ALI RANJHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AHMAD SAQIB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 199---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Constitutional petition---Reasons for decision---Scope---Petitioner/ defendant assailed the concurrent dismissal of his application for cancellation of written statement as well as power of attorney---Contention of petitioner, inter alia, was that he neither appointed any Advocate nor authorized any person to file conceding written statement on his behalf---Validity---Revisional Court had neither noted the contentions of petitioner nor properly thrashed out while passing impugned order, thus, same lacked valid lawful reasons and was passed in violation of the provisions of S. 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, which had bound down the Judge to assign reasoning and pass speaking order/judgment---Where the reasons were not forthcoming from the impugned order/judgment, the High Court was deprived of the valuable views of the subordinate forum---Impugned revisional order was amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Constitutional petition was allowed and the case was remanded to the Revisional Court for decision afresh.
- Sheraz Zaka for Petitioner.
- Ahsan Ullah Ranjha for Respondent No.1.
- 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that neither conceding written statement was signed by petitioner nor was it given with free consent. He adds that material aspects of the matter have been overlooked while passing impugned orders, thus, same are unsustainable in the eye of law.
- 3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 defends the impugned orders.
- 5. The main contentions of petitioner are that he neither appointed any Advocate nor authorized any person to file conceding written statement on his behalf; that on 22.10.2020, petitioner was identified by learned counsel of plaintiff/ respondent No.1 rather by counsel allegedly engaged by petitioner, which shows mala fide and ulterior motive of respondent No. 1; that petitioner's signatures on the margins of order sheet of learned Trial Court are different as on orders dated 18.08.2020, 18.05.2021 and 20.05.2021; that even otherwise, admissions attributed to the petitioner/ defendant in the written statement were not of the nature as to show that he was confessing the claim of respondent No.1/ plaintiff; that Trial Court cannot pass judgment on the basis of such admissions within the purview of Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C., rather it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to frame issues and then decide the case in accordance with the procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He has placed reliance upon Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others v. Ally Brothers and Company (Pak.) Ltd. through Managing Director / Chief Executive and another (2001 MLD 1615).
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A
Constitutional petition
Reasons for decision
Scope
Petitioner/ defendant assailed the concurrent dismissal of his application for cancellation of written statement as well as power of attorney
Contention of petitioner, inter alia, was that he neither appointed any Advocate nor authorized any person to file conceding written statement on his behalf
Revisional Court had neither noted the contentions of petitioner nor properly thrashed out while passing impugned order, thus, same lacked valid lawful reasons and was passed in violation of the provisions of S. 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, which had bound down the Judge to assign reasoning and pass speaking order/judgment
Where the reasons were not forthcoming from the impugned order/judgment, the High Court was deprived of the valuable views of the subordinate forum
Impugned revisional order was amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court
Constitutional petition was allowed and the case was remanded to the Revisional Court for decision afresh.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.
Through instant petition, petitioner has challenged vires of orders dated 20.05.2021 and 20.10.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Kotmomin, respectively, whereby petitioner's application for cancellation of written statement as well as power of attorney was concurrently dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that neither conceding written statement was signed by petitioner nor was it given with free consent. He adds that material aspects of the matter have been overlooked while passing impugned orders, thus, same are unsustainable in the eye of law.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 defends the impugned orders.
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. The main contentions of petitioner are that he neither appointed any Advocate nor authorized any person to file conceding written statement on his behalf; that on 22.10.2020, petitioner was identified by learned counsel of plaintiff/ respondent No.1 rather by counsel allegedly engaged by petitioner, which shows mala fide and ulterior motive of respondent No. 1; that petitioner's signatures on the margins of order sheet of learned Trial Court are different as on orders dated 18.08.2020, 18.05.2021 and 20.05.2021; that even otherwise, admissions attributed to the petitioner/ defendant in the written statement were not of the nature as to show that he was confessing the claim of respondent No.1/ plaintiff; that Trial Court cannot pass judgment on the basis of such admissions within the purview of Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C., rather it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to frame issues and then decide the case in accordance with the procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He has placed reliance upon Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others v. Ally Brothers and Company (Pak.) Ltd. through Managing Director / Chief Executive and another (2001 MLD 1615).
6. Perusal of the impugned revisional order shows that learned Revisional Court has neither noted the contentions of petitioner nor properly thrashed out while passing impugned order, thus, same, lacking valid lawful reasons, has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which binds down the Judge to assign reasoning and pass speaking order/judgment. Where the reasons are not forthcoming from the impugned order/judgment, the appellate/ revisional authority/Higher Court is deprived of the valuable views of the subordinate forum. In these circumstances, impugned revisional order is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed upon Province of Sindh through Secretary Education, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 3 others v. Miss Saima Bano and others (2003 SCMR 1126), Muhammad Farooq Shah v. Shakirullah (2006 SCMR 1657), Abdul Majeed Zafar and others v. Governor of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (2007 SCMR 330), Umar Din through L.Rs. v. Mst. Shakeela Bibi and others (2009 SCMR 29), Secretary Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Dr. Rehana Hameed and others (2010 SCMR 511), Government of Pakistan through Director-General, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others v. Farheen Rashid (2011 SCMR 1) and Messrs MFMY Industries Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Commerce and others (2015 SCMR 1550).
7. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed and impugned order dated 20.10.2021 is set aside. The case is remitted to learned Revisional Court with direction to re-decide the same through a well-reasoned speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before learned Additional District Judge on 28.02.2022. Compliance report shall be furnished to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial). SA/M-57/L Case remanded.