Finality of judgment

2022 CLC 1896 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 24 & 199Constitutional petitionProperty rightsFinality of judgmentPetitioner was aggrieved of notification issued by authorities declaring land owned by her as 'state land'

Plea raised by petitioner was that land in question was decreed in her favour which decree was not assailed by authorities

Validity

One could not blow hot and cold in the same breath i.e. approbate and reprobate and on the basis of principle of estoppel

Once decree was passed and remained unchallenged, it had attained finality, therefore, claim of petitioner was admitted in terms of degree of Civil Court and report of Patwari was in negation of claim of authorities

For setting up of claim about 'state land' authorities were required not only to assail decree of Civil Court but also of Referee Court, especially when possession of property was handed over to petitioner

Petitioner was required to have been associated with any proceedings conducted by authorities for holding it to be a state land

If authorities were in need of that particular piece of land, they could get it but in accordance with provisions of the Constitution

Authorities could not be allowed to usurp property of petitioner, to dispossess her or infringe her fundamental and statutory rights that too in violation of law of land

Authorities were duty bound to act in accordance with law and petitioner was entitled to be treated in consonance with law

High Court declared notification in question to be illegal, against the law, in violation of fundamental rights of petitioner and basic statutory provisions affecting the rights of petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2013 CLD 912 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 27Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152Finality of judgmentArithmetical mistakesCorrection of errorsSpecial and general lawScope

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which is a special statute had provided a parallel provision to obtain remedy as claimed which excludes application of general principle of law i.e. S.152, C.P.C.

Provision of S.152, C.P.C. deals with clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders arise therein from accidental slip or omission whereas proviso to S.27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, deals with only clerical or typographical mistakes in judgment

Arithmetical mistake is considered to be mistake of calculation; clerical mistake is mistake in writing or typing whereas error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is error due to careless mistake of Court

Legislature's intent is very visible and clear while incorporating provision of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and only includes clerical and typographical mistakes.