2010 PLP 147 (GBLR)
SHAH DAURAN — Petitioner Versus HABIBUR REHMAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 147 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. |
| Parties | SHAH DAURAN — Petitioner Versus HABIBUR REHMAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 147 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 147 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 147 (GBLR) (SHAH DAURAN — Petitioner Versus HABIBUR REHMAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehsan Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Issa, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.65
Supreme Appellate Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.1
Review of judgment of Supreme Appellate Court
Error having material effect
Supreme Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the courts below and directed Trial Court to decide application for setting aside ex parte decree afresh but in judgment under review it was mentioned that ex parte decree had been set aside
Error pointed out in the judgment was of substantial nature and without its correction remand order would be of no consequence
Supreme Appellate Court directed not to read the words `set aside the decree' as part of judgment under review, which was modified accordingly
Petition was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J.
This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 20-6-2008 passed in C.P.L.A. No.9 of 2008 which was allowed and case was sent back to the trial Court for fresh decision of the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree passed in a civil suit, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this Court while remanding the case to the trial Court set aside the ex parte decree as a result of which remand order has become ineffective and this was a patent error which has rendered the judgment inoperative. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that case was intended to be remanded for decision of suit instead of application, therefore the error pointed out has no material effect, and this petition may be dismissed with direction to the trial Court for decision of suit on merits. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that error pointed out in the judgment is of substantial nature and without its correction the remand order would be of no consequence, therefore the words "Set aside the Decree" in operating part of judgment will not be read as part of judgment. This petition with above modification in the judgment is allowed with no order as to costs. M.H./20/Glt. Petition allowed.