Appellate Court

Appellate court would be duty bound to decide the said application one way or the other but in case if it fails to do so, in peculiar circumstances of a case, no fruitful purpose would be achieved by sending the case back to appellate court for decision of that application by setting aside all the judgments and decrees especially when a party has failed to prove any nexus with the suit property and justify its possession over it.

Judgment recorded without considering evidence cannot be approved as it violates provision of O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. which states that Appellate Court shall deliver the judgment in writing and shall state points for determination, the decision thereof and reasons for the decision

Appellate Court in first appeal is duty bound to consider the case de novo for reaching a conclusion

Judgment of Appellate Court should be error free, concise, consistent, coherent and comprehensible irrespective of the stylistic difference

Principles, parameters and requirements of a judgment are that the judgment should contain a concise statement of case, points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for such decision manifesting application of mind to resolve issue involved which ought to be self-contained, unambiguous, easily intelligible, lucid, open only to one interpretation and thus leaving nothing to guess work or probabilities on matters under determination and should also be self-keeping, well-reasoned and analytical reflecting due consideration of facts, law and contention of parties founded on legal grounds and the evidence on record

It was the duty of the Appellate Court to decide the controversy between the parties after application of independent judicial mind and that mere reproduction of the judgment of Trial Court and thereafter dismissing the appeal cannot be in consonance with the law

After insertion of S.24 of General Clauses Act, 1897 even the public functionaries are duty bound to decide the application of citizens while exercising statutory powers with reasons after judicial application of mind

In the instant case, the court below fell in error and did not properly look into the evidence

Mere mistake of department representative in process of calculation of bill could not be a ground to exonerate the consumer from paying the actual dues for consumption of gas and the liability was to be regulated by terms agreed in the contract

Revision petition was accepted, judgment of the court below was set aside and case was remanded.

Opinion sought by the Governor Gilgit-Baltistan (G.B.) through Reference under Art. 92 of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 with regard to the legal position of the judgments passed by the Chief Court/subordinate Courts on the matters relating to creation/ upgradation of posts

Supreme Appellate Court opined that Gilgit-Baltistan Government is not competent/empowered to create/ upgrade any post without prior concurrence of the Federal Finance Division Islamabad, therefore, G.B. Government is bound to transmit the cases pertaining to creation and upgradation of posts to Federal Government/Federal Finance Division, Islamabad, for their concurrence and thereafter in the light of requisite concurrence sought from Federal Government G.B., Government will be in a position to comply with the judgments/orders of G.B. Courts in true letter and spirit

However, the Court, which has issued the direction for creation or up-gradation of any post in the judgment, should not adopt coercive measures or issue contempt of court notice to concerned Secretary while dealing with implementation petitions till the requisite concurrence is received

Supreme Appellate Court while dealing with so many CPLAs, pending before it, has issued directions to the Chief Court not to press hard the authorities of the concerned Departments in the cases wherein the concurrence has been sought from Federal Finance Division Islamabad, by the G.B. Government, rather the Supreme Appellate Court issued directions from time to time to the Chief Court for granting sufficient time to the authorities of concerned Departments in implementation of the judgments in question till the receipt of requisite concurrence

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Opinion sought by the Governor Gilgit-Baltistan (G.B.) through Reference under Art. 92 of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 with regard to the legal position of the judgments passed by the Chief Court/subordinate Courts on the matters relating to creation/ upgradation of posts

Supreme Appellate Court opined that Gilgit-Baltistan Government is not competent/empowered to create/ upgrade any post without prior concurrence of the Federal Finance Division Islamabad, therefore, G.B. Government is bound to transmit the cases pertaining to creation and upgradation of posts to Federal Government/Federal Finance Division, Islamabad, for their concurrence and thereafter in the light of requisite concurrence sought from Federal Government G.B., Government will be in a position to comply with the judgments/orders of G.B. Courts in true letter and spirit

However, the Court, which has issued the direction for creation or up-gradation of any post in the judgment, should not adopt coercive measures or issue contempt of court notice to concerned Secretary while dealing with implementation petitions till the requisite concurrence is received

Supreme Appellate Court while dealing with so many CPLAs, pending before it, has issued directions to the Chief Court not to press hard the authorities of the concerned Departments in the cases wherein the concurrence has been sought from Federal Finance Division Islamabad, by the G.B. Government, rather the Supreme Appellate Court issued directions from time to time to the Chief Court for granting sufficient time to the authorities of concerned Departments in implementation of the judgments in question till the receipt of requisite concurrence

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Where the evidence on record was sufficient to dispose of the case by the appellate court, the case should not be remanded.

High Court is empowered to decide entire controversy in appeal when entire evidence is available on record and is sufficient to establish a case.

Appellate Court could only intervene in sentence imposed by Trial Court if such sentence was demonstrably unfit, or, the sentencing judge made an error in principle that had an impact on the sentence

Appellate courts should give sentencing judges the tools to depart from past precedents and provide appropriate sentences when a body of precedent no longer responded to society's current understanding and awareness of the gravity of a particular offence and blameworthiness of particular offenders or to the legislative initiatives of Parliament

However, appellate courts could not interpret or apply the standard of review to enforce ranges or starting points of sentences, as doing so would be to usurp the role of Parliament in creating categories of offences.

Question of law could be raised at any stage of the case but that had to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each case

Court had to decide whether such party could be allowed to raise such objection for the first time before the appellate court or whether facts and circumstances of the case did not permit a party to raise such question for the first time.

Under S.428, Cr.P.C an appellate court could take additional evidence on its own or upon an application of a party to the appeal, i.e. the appellant, the State or the complainant but in both such cases the appellate court had to record its reasons why it thought that taking of additional evidence was necessary

Necessity of taking additional evidence at the appellate stage must be felt by the appellate court itself and the same was not dependent upon what a party to the appeal thought of such necessity

After feeling the necessity of taking additional evidence and after recording reasons for such necessity the appellate court may either take such evidence itself or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate or, when the appellate court was a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate

Where the additional evidence was taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate it or he shall certify such evidence to the appellate court and the appellate court shall then proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of the pre-existing evidence as well as the additional evidence lawfully becoming a part of the record.

Constitutional petitions regarding the allegations levelled through a media briefing against a Judge of the Accountability Court ('the Judge') who had convicted and sentenced a former Prime Minister ('the accused')

Video recording of Judge purportedly showing him stating that he was pressurized into convicting the accused, in absence of any concrete evidence

Question as to which court could take such video in evidence

Held, that as the Trial Court in the case of the accused had already become functus officio and as his appeal against his conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court was presently pending before the High Court, therefore, the only Court which could take the relevant video in evidence was the High Court

High Court as an appellate court could take additional evidence under S.428, Cr.P.C.

If the High Court, either on its own motion or on an application submitted by the accused/appellant, felt the necessity of taking additional evidence in the form of the subject video then it may record its reasons for feeling such necessity and may then follow the steps mentioned in S. 428, Cr.P.C.

In such a case the relevant video may be taken as (additional) evidence only after complying with the requirements for proving a video before a court of law

Constitutional petitions were disposed of.

Trial Court decreed the suit but Appellate Court remanded the matter for decision afresh on the ground that entire property of deceased had not been included in the suit

Validity

Parties were provided full opportunities to lead their evidence

Trial Court after appreciating the evidence had decreed the suit

Power to remand the case could not be exercised lightly

Appellate Court while exercising the power to remand the case was to examine the evidence; if evidence was not sufficient to pronounce judgment or decide the issue between the parties then matter could be remanded

Appellate Court could itself record evidence if so required and decide the case

Appellate Court had not pointed out the fact which remained undetermined at trial stage

Nothing was on record as to which property of deceased was not included in the suit

If plaintiff had omitted to include a portion of property in the suit to which the cause of action was related then he would face the consequences of being precluded to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were not based on any evidence

Evidence on record was sufficient for pronouncement of judgment in the present case

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law which was set aside

Matter was remanded by the High Court to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on available record

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Appellate court was not supposed to write a fresh judgment of its own without commenting and explaining the circumstances for forming an opinion contrary to the opinion/reasoning of the Trial Court

Appellate court unless found the judgment of Trial Court suffering from improper treatment of evidence such as wrongly placing the burden of proof on the parties in deciding the issues between them or finding it in conflict with some law on the subject could not reverse finding of Trial Court

Appellate court had to meet the reasoning of the Trial Court in the first instance and thereafter reappraise the evidence on record while reversing the findings of Trial Court.

Powers have been conferred upon the court of first appeal to remand case to Trial Court, if suit has not been disposed of upon preliminary point and has omitted to try any material issue of fact.

Trial Court dismissed suit and First Appellate Court set aside order of Trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of respondents

Appellant contended that it was obligatory for Appellate Court to have discussed the entire evidence produced by the parties, whereas it only referred to one document

Contention of respondent was that said document was the only relevant document that had been discussed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Perusal of record revealed that the Appellate Court discussed the contents of the written statement and one document only whereas it was a matter of record that witnesses and other documents had been produced by the parties at the Trial Court

Right of appeal against judgment and decree of civil court was a statutory right and litigants had a legal right to claim the decision of the appeal in accordance with the law after discussing of the evidence produced by the parties by the first Appellate Court

First Appellate Court had not complied with these requirements of the law

Manner in which first Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the respondent resulted into miscarriage of justice and therefore, same was not sustainable in the eye of law

Judgment and decree of Appellate Court were set aside and matter was remanded to the Appellate Court

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Constitutional petition, if filed thereunder, could not proceed.

Plaintiffs valued their suit at Rs.200 but affixed a sum of Rs.15,000 as court-fee-Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs

Appellate Court, in exercise of power under O.XLI, R.25, C.P. C., remanded the case to Trial Court for determination of value of the suit only

Trial Court fixed the value of the suit as Rs.2 million and returned the file to Appellate Court

Objection raised by plaintiffs was that at the time of remand, Appellate Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter and appeal should have been returned to defendant

Objection raised by plaintiffs was overruled by Appellate Court

Validity

Plaintiffs had valued the suit at Rs.200 for the purposes of jurisdiction

Trial Court did not resolve the question of jurisdictional value in the first instance and simply .stated that since Rs.15,000 court fee had been paid, the matter was over

Matter was ultimately determined after remand, by which time pecuniary jurisdiction of Appellate Court, where in fact appeal was pending, was enhanced to Rs.2.5 million

High Court found it an exercise in futility to direct Appellate Court to return the appeal to be again entrusted to it for decision on merits

Revision .was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellate. Court can allow additional evidence under O.XLI, R.27, C.P.C. where the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted and, secondly where the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable the Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause

Provisions of O.XI, R.27, C.P.C. are exception to the principle that Appellate Court cannot record fresh evidence and additional evidence can be recorded under O.XLI, R.27, C.P.C. provided the situation attracts the applicability

Power to allow additional evidence is discretionary in nature but such discretion is circumscribed by the limitations specified in the rule itself.

Appeal is a right of entering superior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Court below

Conception of Appellate Authority is that it examines the original order for determining whether it had been passed in accordance with law or the subordinate Court has committed error in determining questions of fact and law

Court sitting in appeal cannot claim higher jurisdiction than the original Court.

Where the memorandum of appeal was presented to a Court which was not the appropriate forum to deal with it, S. 11 does not apply to such a situation

Appellate Court referred to in S. 11 means the District Court or the High Court

Curative provisions of S. 11, held, would not, in terms, be of any avail in the Supreme Court.

Jurisdiction-Discretion exercised by lower Court-To be interfered with only if exercised arbitrarily or unjustly-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15.-[Jurisdiction].

Period of payment specified in decree of trial Court-Appellate Court, held, competent to extend such period by ad interim order-Pre-emptor. In view of such order, could, after dismissal of his appeal, deposit pre-emption money within reasonable time-[Malik Khan Badshah v. Miram Khan A I R 1944 Posh. 22 dissented from].

Appellate Court -Practice-Appellate Court can take into consideration subsequent events and change of law in arriving at its decision.

Judgment-Need not deal- in detail with evidence on which findings are based.

Appellate Court -Right of appellate Court to deliver judgment in appeal already heard by it-Cannot be takers away by creation of a new appellate authority except by new law and by express words or necessary intendments of such law.

When would reverse a finding of fact arrived at by trial Judge.