Conversion of proceedings
Conversion of proceedings legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Rejection of suit for declaration with permanent injunction filed by the daughters/petitioners on the ground of withdrawal of suit earlier filed by the donor challenging the mutation of gift on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation
Mental capacity of donor
Determination
Conversion of proceedings
Scope
Objection as to maintainability of second suit on the ground of withdrawal of earlier suit raised by the donees/respondents was rejected by the trial court, but the same was accepted by the revisional court
Validity
Donor died on same day when his statement was recorded for withdrawal of the suit which raised serious doubt as to his mental and physical condition, to record any statement of his free will and consent
Counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners themselves were present on the date of proceedings, who seriously objected that the donor was not in a position to record his statement as he was mentally and physically feeble, thus, his statement could not be recorded but despite that the proceedings were held which gave rise to the question as to whether the court was not under an obligation to seek medical assistance in the matter before recording the statement of donor to verify his soundness of mental condition, particularly, when it was pointedly disputed by the petitioners
Oral gift was challenged on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation by the petitioners whose case was that everything was done by the brothers fraudulently to deprive the sisters of right of inheritance and in such cases every effort should be made to avoid technicalities and decide the cases on merits
Court was competent to convert the plaint in a suit into an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and vice-versa provided just and fair circumstances in the case permitted to do so for effective dispensation of justice
Order passed by the revisional court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision of question of maintainability of the suit in accordance with law
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstance.
Under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C., as per law can be converted into application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Applicant sought transfer of suit filed by her husband in the court of plenary jurisdiction seeking declaration and recovery of gold ornaments to the district where she was residing on the ground that a suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance was already pending in the said district
Contention of respondent was that the application under S. 25-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, was not maintainable
Validity
Generally, in matrimonial disputes, the forum of convenience for a wife took precedent
Partial cause of action of the suit filed by husband had accrued at the district where his wife was residing
Husband was already travelling from his district to another to contest the suit filed by his wife, therefore, the transfer of his suit would not cause any hardship
High Court converted the transfer application from S. 25-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, into an application under S. 24 of C.P.C. and transferred the suit of husband to the district where his wife was residing
Transfer application was allowed, in circumstances.
Revision was filed within one month of the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court and it was not hit by limitation or for that matter by doctrine of laches
High Court had power to convert one type of proceedings into another kind
High Court converted Civil Revision into a Constitutional petition
Objection was disposed of accordingly.
High Court has ample authority to convert a revision into a Constitutional petition and vice versa in a fit case.
Complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused by Anti-Terrorism Court on the plea of statutory delay in conclusion of trial
Validity
Ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial was not available to accused charged with act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life
Provisions of Cr.P.C. had no application for purposes of consideration of bail of accused triable by Anti-Terrorism Court
For such purpose sole considerations were those provided under S.21-D of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Where court or tribunal had requisite jurisdiction under any provision of law, merely because an application was filed by referring to an incorrect statutory provision was inconsequential and did not wrestle away jurisdiction of Court or legality of proceedings conducted by it
High Court was vested with jurisdiction to supervise Anti-Terrorism Court and exercise authority under Arts. 199 & 203 of the Constitution as well as under Ss.435 & 439 and 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Merely because a party filed an application or petition referred to an incorrect provision under which jurisdiction was not vested in High Court, did not place any cloud over legality of proceedings undertaken by the High Court
High Court converted Constitutional petition into application under Ss.435 & 439 of Cr.P.C.
High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order granting bail to accused by Anti-Terrorism Court
Revision was allowed accordingly.
Applicants, through revision application under S.115, C.P.C., assailed concurrent findings of fact whereby suit of respondents for cancellation of registered sale deed was decreed
Remedy of a revision application before the High Court under S.115, C.P.C., was not available where second appeal under S.100, C.P.C., was available
Applicants ought to have filed a second appeal under S.100, C.P.C., instead of a revision application under S.115, C.P.C.
High Court observed that since second appeal was not time-barred when the revision application was filed, since High Court had been given the power to convert one proceeding into another High Court converted revision application into a second appeal and permitted the appellants to file an amended memo of appeal
Subject to compliance of office objections and the filing of amended memo. of appeal, notice was issued to the respondents on the main case.
High Court took cognizance of the matter regarding dumping of chemical material in a shop on a formal complaint sent to the High Court against the owner of business
High Court observed that no fetters or bar could be placed on the powers of the High Court to convert one kind of proceedings into another and to decide the matter either itself in exercise of its jurisdiction or to order its transfer to another Court having jurisdiction or remit it to Court/forum/authority having jurisdiction on merits
Prima facie the issues involved in the proceedings were of public importance
Office (High Court) was directed to place the case before a Division Bench of High Court for decision in its constitutional jurisdiction.
Complainant-appellant instead of seeking special leave to appeal against acquittal of all accused persons, preferred direct appeal, which was admitted by High Court for regular hearing and accused persons were summoned
Validity
Complainant-appellant could be rescued under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., in order to meet ends of justice
Complainant-appellant could not be burdened due to mistake of his counsel as well as office of High Court, who did not consider law in true perspective at initial stage
Appeal was filed within time but no special leave to appeal was obtained nor any such order was passed
No bar existed to consider such appeal as an application for special appeal and allow the same while giving effect from date of admission
High Court could not sit as silent spectator and watch that who committed the mistake
Every Court inherited powers to ensure justice was done and if foul play was visible, Judge had to rectify the same
High Court committed a mistake while entertaining the appeal directly at its initial stage and the same could not be considered against complainant-appellant who also did not apply law in a proper manner
High Court invoking inherent powers in terms of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and relying upon principle actus curiae neminem gravabit, that no one should be prejudiced by the act of Court, condoned application for special leave
Objection was set aside in circumstances.
Chief Court has ample powers to mould a relief or to convert one type of proceedings into another type of proceedings.
Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.18 [as amended by S.6 of Punjab Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, (XXXVIII of 2016]
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Maintainability
Conversion of proceedings
Alternate and efficacious remedy
Petitioner was aggrieved of order passed under S.47, C.P.C. and instead of availing remedy of appeal, invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Plea raised by petitioner was that non-filing of appeal was not fatal as order in question was illegal and was passed without any lawful authority
Appeal lay in the matter under the provisions of S.104(1)(ff), C.P.C. and petitioner failed to prove that the same was neither efficacious nor speedy
High Court directed the office to convert Constitutional petition into appeal as the same had been filed within the period of limitation and remit the appeal to concerned Court for decision
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Trial Court was not justified to convert the proceedings under S. 491, Cr.P.C. into the proceeding under S. 497, Cr.P.C.
No inherent powers were available to the subordinate judiciary under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 to convert one type of proceedings into another type
Inherent powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. were only available to a High Court.
Prime purpose and paramount consideration of legal proceedings is to do justice between parties subject to competency of court and to achieve this object the nature of proceedings are always of secondary consideration, because too much adherence to tech nicalities, which impede course of justice, cannot be countenanced by court
One type of proceedings can conveniently be converted into another type of proceedings to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or failure of justice.
One kind of proceeding could always he converted into another form provided the court had jurisdiction.
"Conversion of proceedings", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942199
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Conversion of proceedings"
P L D 2017 Sindh 486
Mst. QAISRA BANO — Petitioner/Applicant Versus Shaikh SHAHID ABBAS and others — Deceased.
Court: High Court2022 Y L R 1051
Mst. SAIRA ARIF — Petitioner Versus AMIR ALI — Respondent
Court: Lahore2014 C L D 1020
GHULAM DASTGIR ASIF and another — Appellants Versus UNITED BANK LTD. through Manager and 7 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2025 C L C 2048
AMINA BIBI and another — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Distrcit Collector, Sahiwal and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2018 C L C 390
ANEES VAYYANI — Plaintiff Versus Mst. ZARINA VAYANI and 6 others — Defendants
Court: Sindh2007 Y L R 2651
MUHAMMAD HASHIM — Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SPECIAL BANKING COURT, KARACHI
Court: Karachi2021 C L C 1644
FATEH MUHAMMAD and 9 others — Applicants Versus PERVAIZ ALI and 15 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh (Sukkur Bench)1993 M L D 1530
AMIN AKHTAR JAMI ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus JAHANGIR ALAM‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Karachi2021 M L D 200
MUHAMMAD USMAN MEMON — Petitioner Versus D.C.O., HYDERABAD and others — Respondents
Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)P L D 1961 Dacca 499
DR. GOLAM AHAD ‑Petitioner Versus SAMSER ALI AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑Parties
Court: High Court