1986 PLP 2795 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD NAZEER and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2795 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAZEER and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V opt 1908), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2795 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V opt 1908), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2795 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the 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: 1986 PLP 2795 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD NAZEER and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Ashbab for Petitioners.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115--'Case decided'--Connotation of--Revisional jurisdiction--Order of Trial Court dismissing application for amendment of plaint being a case decided; such order, held, was open to interference in revisional jurisdiction. Bashir Ahmad v. Qaiser Ali Khan P L D 1973 S C 507 ref.
Art. 199--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Order dismissing revision petition by Court below on erroneous view of scope of 5.115 of Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), being illegal was set aside, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by High Court with direction to Court below that revision petition should be treated as pending for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 199--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Order dismissing revision petition by Court below on erroneous view of scope of 5.115 of Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), being illegal was set aside, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by High Court with direction to Court below that revision petition should be treated as pending for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Malik Muhammad Ashbab for Petitioners. Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Respondents Nos. 3 and
4. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1986. The learned Civil Judge's order, dated 19-3-1984 was called in question by the petitioners through a revision which was not entertained by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the order did not amount to a case decided within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C.
2. A reference to Bashir Ahmad v. Qaiser Ali Khan P L D 1973 SC 507 will provide that such an order can be subjected to revisional jurisdiction. It being so, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents did not have much in defending the impugned orders.
3. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted, impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Consequently the petitioner's revision shall be treated as pending and to be disposed of afresh in accordance with law, within a period of two months. The parties are left to bear their own costs and are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 24-3-1986. H.B.T.
Petition accepted.