1985 PLP 1876 (CLC)
ABDUL MANAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHIBLAIN and 15 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1876 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl-i-Mahmood, J |
| Parties | ABDUL MANAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHIBLAIN and 15 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981 ) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1876 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981 ) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1876 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl-i-Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1876 (CLC) (ABDUL MANAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHIBLAIN and 15 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Aziz Ahmad with Malik Muhammad Yousaf Javid for Petitioner.
- Talib Haider Rizvi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 9--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, r. 1, O. XLIII, r. 1 a S. 115--Order passed by a statutory functionary on misconception of law--Order and its consequent result both, held, would stand vitiated--Failure of Court to take into consideration ground on which such order had perpetuated, illegality amounted to failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
This writ petition is directed against the orders of learned Additional District Judge as well as the learned Civil Judge whereby the latter refused to entertain the application of the petitioner to recall the order, dated 8-3-1984 on the ground that it was an appealable order. The petitioner, after rejection of his application by order, dated 21-3-1984 went in revision before the learned Additional District Judge as the appeal was not competent. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the order impugned before him has been passed under Order XVII, rule 1, C.P.C. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an order passed under Order XVII, rule 1 is not an appealable order and that was the main ground on the basis of which, the learned trial Court had refused to allow the application and rather dismissed it.
2. On behalf of respondents, Mr. Talib Haider Rizvi, Advocate, states that there is a visible error of approach on the part of the learned Additional District Judge who has not cared to examine the terms in which order had been passed on 21-3-1984 whereby the learned trial Court disallowed the application on irrelevant consideration and erroneous view of law.
3. I, therefore, find that where an order has been passed by a statutory functionary on a misconception of law then the result and order would stand vitiated. The failure of the learned Additional District A Judge to address himself to the ground on the basis of which the order, dated 21-3-1984 has perpetuated that illegality amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction.
4. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Civil Judge to dispose of the application of the petitioner for the recall of the order, dated 8-3-1984 in accordance with law. In view of the reasonable attitude of the learned counsel for respondents, there shall be no order as to costs. A.A. Case remanded.