Powers of court

Courts are empowered by the law to adopt this course and dispense an effective decree which settles the rights of the parties forming the part of the same issue in order to avoid multiple legal actions

Courts cannot deny relief just because there is a defect in the prayer and such relief has not been asked for

Courts are not powerless to overlook such defects.

Where words of statute are clear and unambiguous, provision should be given its plain and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any words

Departure from literal rule, by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what the Legislature intended or desired

Court cannot recast or reframe legislation, as it has no power to legislate

Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there unless principles of interpretation of statute require otherwise

Legislature means what it says and says what it means

It is the obligation of Courts of law to further clear intendment of Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same

Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge's views.

Where words of statute are clear and unambiguous, provision should be given its plain and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any words

Departure from literal rule, by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what the Legislature intended or desired

Court cannot recast or reframe legislation, as it has no power to legislate

Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there unless principles of interpretation of statute require otherwise

Legislature means what it says and says what it means

It is the obligation of Courts of law to further clear intendment of Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same

Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge's views.

Where words of statute are clear and unambiguous, provision should be given its plain and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any words

Departure from literal rule, by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what the Legislature intended or desired

Court cannot recast or reframe legislation, as it has no power to legislate

Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there unless principles of interpretation of statute require otherwise

Legislature means what it says and says what it means

It is the obligation of Courts of law to further clear intendment of Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same

Legislative wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge's views.

While making award Rule of the Court, the Court is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner, like a post office and put its seal on it

Court has to look into the award and if it finds patent illegality on the face of the award, it can remit the award or any of the matters to arbitrator for reconsideration or set aside the same.

Hands of a Court cannot be tied up by requiring that in face of misbehavior by a party or a counsel, prior to recording what transpired in Court, it must issue a notice to misbehaving party or counsel

Where misbehavior acquires a form that the Court is minded to exercise its powers of contempt, the law does require that a notice be issued

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declined to expunge the remarks made against petitioner, as order of Special Court did not suffer from any illegality of a nature that rendered the order illegal and without jurisdiction and had to be corrected by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner alleged that Special Court in its order had misstated facts but there was no factual basis to assume that the petitioner's version of facts constituted actual truth

High Court merely on the basis of affidavit furnished by petitioner, declined to interfere with and expunge remarks and observations made by three serving judges of three High Courts, who at the relevant time comprised Special Court constituted under S. 4 of Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976

No fundamental rights of petitioner were at peril in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

No jurisdiction and discretion under S.41 of Arbitration Act, 1940, has been conferred upon Court to pass interim orders

Such proceedings are only applicable in respect of arbitration proceedings before Court

Arbitration Act, 1940 is a special law and is a complete code in itself

Use of words 'arbitration proceedings' were not to be so stretched to include all proceedings before the Court like an ordinary civil suit as well.

No jurisdiction and discretion under S.41 of Arbitration Act, 1940, has been conferred upon Court to pass interim orders

Such proceedings are only applicable in respect of arbitration proceedings before Court

Arbitration Act, 1940 is a special law and is a complete code in itself

Use of words 'arbitration proceedings' were not to be so stretched to include all proceedings before the Court like an ordinary civil suit as well.

Court, in suit for specific performance, was not meant to be authorized under the Preamble of Specific Relief Act, 1877, to direct the parties to perform any new action, rather the Court was to bind the parties to do an act/perform obligation for which they had bound themselves with their free-will through solemn affirmation by an undertaking

When any of the parties to the said solemn affirmation and admitted agreements, expressed reluctance then Specific Relief Act, 1877, entitled the aggrieved party to sue the defaulting one before the Court of plenary jurisdiction

Parties, in the present case, entered into solemn affirmation through agreement that on certain terms and conditions appellant/vendor would alienate premises to the respondent

When the appellant, on the fixed date, failed to abide by his commitment, the respondent resorted to civil action and the Trial Court extended specific relief in his(respondent's) favour which, in the backdrop of the facts of the present case, appeared to be in accordance with the canons of law

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent/vendee

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prerequisite for invocation of S. 290 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 falls upon person filing application to prove mismanagement and oppression

Court is fully authorized to pass any order as it thinks fit with regard to regulating conduct of affairs of company or for other aspects.

Legal requirement as contemplated by O.VII, R.3, C.P.C., obliged the plaintiff to mention the description of the property to sufficiently identify the disputed property either by boundaries or numbers in the record of settlement of survey

No ambiguity or difficulty was to exist in locating and determining the disputed property

To ascertain the disputed property with exactitude the court must make all efforts and while performing such duty, the court could call the parties to file better statements, amend the plaint and even require the parties to produce such evidence

To ask for an amendment was an inherent and vested right of a plaintiff subject to two conditions i.e. (i) the proposed amendment would not alter and change the character and complexion of the suit and (ii) all such amendments would be made as might be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and such right was governed by the provisions of O.VI, R. 17, C.P.C.

Any defect in the form of a suit would not culminate in dismissal of suit because all the rules of procedure were meant to foster the cause of justice

Court was bound to consider the request of amendment in a broader perspective and remain quite liberal and flexible while exercising jurisdiction under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C.

Record revealed that, in the present case, the amendment of pleadings was sought and accorded on grounds to lessen and reduce the area of disputed property and identify the reduced area by mentioning the boundaries of the disputed property

Plaintiff could reduce, restrict or lessen his claim i.e. withdraw from a large area or amount and confine the claim to a smaller area or lesser amount

Latter portion of the O.VI, R. 17, C.P.C., cast a duty upon court to grant permission for amendment as a matter of right if it was essential and inevitable for the resolution of real controversy and just decision of the case

Application for review was dismissed being devoid of force.

Appellant filed application for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of immovable properties which belonged to his deceased mother

Single Judge of High Court granted Letter of Administration in the name of appellant, subject to his furnishing surety/security bond

Validity

Where Court granted Letters of Administration to petitioner on his application, the Court had no power to dispense with the surety, which was a condition precedent for issuance of Letters of Administration

Under S.281(2)(b) of Succession Act, 1925, there was no discretion with Court to demand a bond from a person to whom a probate was granted in as much as the word 'may' had been used therefore, it was discretionary

Where the case before Court did not fall under S.373(3) or (4) of Succession Act, 1925, the Court had discretion to dispense with the security while granting Succession Certificate but in respect of cases falling under S.373(3) or (4) of Succession Act, 1925, the Court could not grant Succession Certificate without first obtaining security from petitioner

Provision of R.400 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) was in the nature of subordinate legislation and it could not over-ride the effect of S.291 of Succession Act, 1925, as the same was a substantive provision of law

To the extent of inconsistency between the two, the substantive provisions of S.291 of Succession Act, 1925, would prevail over R.400 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)

Where a particular procedure was prescribed for doing something that thing must be done according to that procedure otherwise the entire proceedings would be illegal or irregular

Single Judge of High Court had rightly decided application in accordance with law and the order did not require any interference in intra-court appeal

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

If it appeared to the court that evidence of a person was essential to the just decision of the case, then there was no discretion to prevent such a person from being examined

Power under S. 540, Cr.P.C. to summon a witness may either be exercised suo motu or on an application

In the present case, evidence of the proposed witness seemed to be essential as she was the sole witness of the incident

Revision petition was allowed in circumstances.

Court, while examining the validity of an award, does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot undertake reappraisal of evidence

For the Court to interfere in an arbitration award, there has to be an error on the face of it and discoverable by reading the award itself.

When from facts of a case it becomes clear that plaint is not entertainable being barred by law, the same can be rejected or returned.

Order XIII, R. 1 & 2, C.P.C. empower the court to allow consideration of documents even during recording of evidence or even after the evidence had been completed.

Court while examining correctness and legality of award could neither act as a court of appeal nor undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by Arbitrator in order to discern error or infirmity therein.

Vested right would be created in favour of opposite party after expiry of limitation, which could not be taken away lightly

Applicant for condonation would have to explain delay of each day

Condonation of delay being prerogative of court, which must be exercised rationally and judicially

Delay could be condoned only on showing sufficient cause for not approaching court within time.

Plaintiff failed to deposit decretal amount within the period fixed by the Trial Court and his application for permission to deposit the same was rejected and suit stood dismissed

Appeal of the defendants was disposed of by dismissing the suit

Validity

Conditional decree was passed in favour of plaintiff which had a penal provision

Decree of Trial Court had attained finality

Trial Court was functus officio when appeal was disposed of

Application for extension of time was moved after three months

Amount deposited could not benefit the plaintiff as same was subject to objections from other side

Discretion exercised by the Trial Court had been exercised properly and no illegality or irregularity or perversity was found in the impugned order

Impugned order of the Appellate Court did not need further resolution as suit had not been decreed

Both revision and appeal were dismissed.

Courts i.e., Magistrate, Sessions Court and High Court/Shariat Court could quash any criminal proceedings under the statutory provisions keeping in view the principles laid down therein.

Court after passing preliminary decree could extend such time as matter would remain sub judice thereafter, but would become functus officio after passing final decree and could not extend such time

Principles.

Scope stated.

Court of equity would always refuse its aid to stale demands, where a party had slept upon its rights and acquiesced for a great length of time

Delay of each day would have to be explained

Court had discretion to condone delay only after satisfying itself that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay

Court had no power to exercise its direction arbitrarily even if an important point was involved in a case

Court while exercising its discretion would be duty bound to keep in view principles of equity and fairplay in a judicial manner.

Formal defect in pleadings, if bona fide and occurred due to mistake of fact or misrepresentation, should be allowed to be corrected by amendment.

Court while examining correctness and legality of award could neither act as a court of appeal nor undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by Arbitrator in order to discern error or infirmity therein.

Principles.

Court would not be bound to grant such relief merely because doing so would be lawful.

Word "shall" as used in O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., made mandatory on court to reject plaint in case of finding one or more of its four clauses applicable thereto.

Principles.

Principles.

Family Court has uninhibited powers to enhance or decrease quantum of maintenance after appraising, deciphering and examining evidence produced during trial

Findings regarding interim maintenance normally cannot be interfered with, if the same were fixed upon the parameters in such regard.

court could look into and compare signatures at its own.

Court in such case could dismiss suit either under O.IX, C.P.C. for non-prosecution or under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. for non-compliance of its order, but could not exercise both such powers simultaneously

Provision of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. would not apply where neither plaintiff was present nor was any evidence available on record

Principles.

Court on its accord could compare such signatures and draw opinion.

Such defendants got ex parte decree set aside on the ground that they did not mortgage their properties resultantly suit filed by bank was dismissed

Validity

Mortgage deed in respect of properties showed name of one defendant as witness, whereas power of attorney of the same date showed that same defendant executed it on such date and some other person was shown as a witness

Such anomaly itself showed nothing but fraud and forgery and vitiated the two documents

Banking Court, on its own, under the provisions of Art.84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, looked into the signatures of the defendant as available on mortgage deed and power of attorney, both of the same date and compared the same from the ones available on Vakalatnama, leave to defend application and other documents and came to the conclusion that signatures appearing on deeds and power of attorney were forged

Banking Court after looking into the matter had rightly dismissed the suit and judgment required no interference

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Court has wide powers to call or recall any witness but such powers are not to be exercised to fill in lacuna left by any party

Court has to exercise such powers judiciously for just decision of case keeping in view circumstances of each and every case

Court generally does not allow to raise such plea for first time before Supreme Court with sole object to create doubts about judgments of courts below.

Order VII, R.11, C.P.C. empowered the court to reject the plaint which was insufficiently stamped and where plaintiff had failed to file requisite stamp paper within the time fixed by the court.

Under S.345(2), Cr.P.C., the court was empowered to permit compounding of offences mentioned therein.

Appellant contended that the Trial Court could not reject the petition without framing the issues and providing them opportunity to lead evidence

Validity

Object of settlement of disputes through arbitration was to bypass the lengthy procedure involved in civil cases

Arbitration was a domestic tribunal controlled by chosen representatives of parties to do complete justice expeditiously without technicalities of procedural law

Trial Court did not prevent the parties from leading evidence, therefore, omission to frame issues was inconsequential

Court was not bound to frame issues and record evidence in all circumstances for decision of the suit

Function of court in arbitration cases was, principally, supervisory in nature under C.P.C.

Court had to give reasonable intendment in favour of the award leaning towards upholding rather than vitiating the same

Court would neither act as court of appeal nor override the award through its own judgment by scrutinizing the award to discover errors for the purpose of setting aside the same

Allegations of misconduct against the arbitrator were vague in nature

Arbitrator followed the procedure and answered all the pleas and objections of the parties accordingly without violating any principle of natural justice

Findings of the arbitrator were within the parameters of the submissions made by the parties before him

Possibility of a different view by appreciating the facts with a different angle was no ground for setting aside the award

Arbitrator, being the final judge on question of law and fact, his decision merited weightage unless misconduct against' him stood proved

Not proper for the court to reappraise the evidence recorded by the arbitrator merely to discover errors or infirmities in the award

Appellant failed to point out any legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the arbitrator who dealt with the claims of parties minutely

Trial Court rightly dismissed the objection petition

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court, in exercise of powers conferred under Art.84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 compared signatures on disputed pro note and receipt pro note with those on written statement, reply to surety bond, application for recalling order, affidavits, statement before the Trial Court, memorandum of appeal, civil miscellaneous applications and power of attorney and by comparison of all said signatures, being satisfied, that the disputed signatures of the defendant were reasonably same with the signatures on pro note and receipt pro note held that findings by the Trial Court were based upon the correct appreciation of evidence

Appeal was dismissed with costs throughout.

Sections 5, 12 & 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 empowered court to enlarge the period of limitation according to particular circumstances of each case, provided those provisions had been specifically made applicable on the proceedings and in absence of its application, the court on its own would not be competent to apply the said, provisions to condone delay in filing proceedings Principles.

Court was fully competent to consider all documents whether these were exhibited or not for reaching the true conclusion of the controversy.