1975 PLP 254 (SCMR)
Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ETC-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 254 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ETC-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 19080 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 254 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 19080 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 254 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 254 (SCMR) (Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ETC-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 28th October 1974.
- Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated She 5tb of February 1974, in R. S. A. No. 117 of 1970).
O. XIII, r. 2, react with O. XLI, r. 1-Civil appeal-Whether mere omission to file copy of trial Court's judgment can affect competence of appeal and High Court on second appeal should permit appellant to put in judgment within a specified time-Leave to appeal granted to consider question.
Judgment & Decree
O. XIII, r. 2, react with O. XLI, r. 1‑Civil appeal‑Whether mere omission to file copy of trial Court's judgment can affect competence of appeal and High Court on second appeal should permit appellant to put in judgment within a specified time‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 28th October 1974. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner has been aggrieved by the dismissal of his second appeal by the High Court on the ground that the appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the trial Court as required under Order XII1, Rule b., read with Order XLI, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that this omission escaped the notice of the Bench admitting second appeal to a regular hearing. The omission was discovered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court before whom the appeal appeared for a regular hearing. It was, however, then too late to repair the damage as the time had run out for putting in the copy of the judgment of the trial Court. It has been contended before us that once the appeal has been admitted to a regular hearing, the mere omission to fit‑ a copy of the trial Court's judgment cannot affect the competence of the appeal, and that the learned Single Judge could and should have permitted the petitioner to put in the judgment within a specified time. It appears that for consideration of a similar question leave was granted by this Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 5711 of 1972 on the 12th of July, 1973. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. Security for costs Rs. 1,000, Prayer for stay is refused. Leave granted.