1982 PLP 2047 (CLC)
KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN AND ANOTHER‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 2047 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zakiuddin Pal, J |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN AND ANOTHER‑ Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 2047 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 2047 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zakiuddin Pal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 2047 (CLC) (KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN AND ANOTHER‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sayed Sardar Shah Bokhari for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 115 read with Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)‑Revision Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and District Judge‑Revision petition dismissed by District Judge‑Second revision petition against order of District Judge, held, not competent.
Judgment & Decree
Sayed Sardar Shah Bokhari for Petitioners. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 24‑4‑I974. . passed by the learned District Judge, Multan under section 115 of the C. P. C.
2. Under the amended law, the High Court as well as the District Judge, both, have courrent jurisdiction and if the necessary order has been passed under section 115, C. P. C by the learned District Judge, revision petition against the said order would be incompetent.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the revision petition itself, before the learned District Judge, was incompetent and as such was liable to be dismissed. I am afraid, this contention cannot be allowed to be raised at this late stage, as the same was never raised before the learned District Judge, who disposed of the revision petition:
4. It is further contended that the amendment introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance (No. XII) of 1972 in the Civil Procedure Code is ultra vires of the powers of the President, who could not do the same I am afraid, this contention also cannot be allowed to be raised as the same was never raised before the learned District Judge. Even otherwise I am not concerned with the other provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance, except the amendment of section 115, C. P. C., under which the revision petition has been disposed of by the learned District Judge. Nothing has been shown as to how the present revision petition is competent after the order of the. learned District Judge under the same provision of law has been passed. The civil revision being incompetent is hereby. dismissed in limine. M. Y. M Petition dismissed.