Wrong provision of law

2025 CLD 1165 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 265, 290, 291 & 292Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 11Oppression and mismanagementRejecting of proceedingsWrong provision of lawConverting of petition

Petitioners alleged that respondents acted with mala fide and had deprived them of their shareholding and directorship in an illegal manner

Respondent sought rejection of petition on the plea that it was not maintainable

Validity

Mentioning of wrong provision of law in petition does not prevent Court from exercising its proper authority and appropriate jurisdiction vested under law, keeping in view circumstances of a case

High Court declared that petition under Ss. 290, 291 & 292 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 was not maintainable and the same was converted into a petition under S. 265 of Companies Ordinance, 1984

High Court directed Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan to proceed into the matter and appoint inspectors to investigate into the affairs of the company after issuing show cause notice as per law

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

2023 PTD 1528 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 11, 36 & 47ReferenceWrong provision of lawEffect

Show-cause notice was set aside by Customs Appellate Tribunal for mentioning of S.11(3) instead of S.36 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Validity

Merely because show-cause notices were labelled under S.11(3) instead of S.36 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, was not such a defect or vagueness to undergo test of judicial scrutiny

Such omission did not cause any prejudice to respondent-taxpayers and the same could not be declared invalid under the law

Main issues raised by parties were not decided by Customs Appellate Tribunal, therefore, High Court in reference jurisdiction was deprived of the views of the Tribunal, as Reference Application was to be decided on the basis of facts determined by Appellate Tribunal

High Court set aside order in question and matter was remanded to Customs Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to both the parties

Reference was allowed accordingly.

2021 CLC 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5 & 17Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)Judgment and decree, setting aside ofJurisdiction of Family CourtWrong provision of law

Parties were husband and wife inter se and suit for dissolution of marriage filed by wife/respondent was dismissed as withdrawn by Family Court

On application under S.12(2), C.P.C. filed by wife/respondent Family Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside the order on the plea of fraud and misrepresentation and marriage was dissolved

Plea raised by husband/petitioner was that Family Court did not have jurisdiction to set aside order under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Validity

If power of Court was there and Court had got jurisdiction to undo a fraudulent order obtained, then all such irrational technicalities and formalities should not deprive a real and genuine litigant

Contents of application and prayer of litigant were to determine fate of a suit, an appeal or a petition

Substantial justice must be done, granted and showered upon genuine litigant, leaving aside all formal and minor technicalities hindering path of justice

No jurisdiction error, legal infirmity and illegality existed in order passed by Courts below, rather vested jurisdiction was judiciously and aptly exercised

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent orders passed by two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2021 CLC 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

ssumption ofWrong provision of lawEffect

Merely citing or relying on wrong provision of law to assume jurisdiction over a lis is of no consequence, provided the Court otherwise has jurisdiction under the Constitution, statue or any other provision of law to pass order.

2018 YLR 1234 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Wrong provision of lawEffect

Merely mentioning wrong provision of law or making wrong headnote in heading of the application hardly makes any difference; what is required to be seen is gist and substance of the matter

Merely writing something different in headnote of the application does not change its substance and complexion.

2014 PLD 574 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Wrong provision of lawEffect

Reference to wrong provision does not invalidate exercise of statutory power, if locus for such power can be found to exist lawfully in some other provision.

2014 CLC 725 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Wrong provision of lawEffect

Nomenclature of application does not matter but what matters is pith and substance.