Inherent jurisdiction
Inherent jurisdiction legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
If a party who approaches the Court, with mala fide intention by concealing material facts, which if brought before the Court, the plaintiff would have been out of Court for having no cause of action and also in a situation here defendants brought any such fact in the notice of the Court, the same can also be judiciously pondered upon while deciding an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., because a plaintiff should not be allowed to grind the other party into false and frivolous litigation
Basic objective and aim of O. VII, R.11, C.P.C., is that an incompetent suit should be laid to rest at its inception so that no further time is allowed to be wasted over what is bound to collapse
Suit may be specifically barred by law and in such an event, the matter would come under the terms of clause (d) of R.11, O. VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but even in a case where a suit is not permitted by necessary implication of law in the sense that a positive prohibition can be spelt out of legal provisions, the Court has got an inherent jurisdiction to reject the plaint at any stage of trial and in such a situation formalities should be avoided to reject it, thus, O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C., is not exhaustive
Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction can nip frivolous litigation in the bud
It is the duty of the Court to thoroughly examine the plaint at the very inception so that the parties could be saved from the agony of frivolous litigation in order to save the precious time of the Court because a court should not behave like a silent observer and allow a party to capture the whole system of justice for an indefinite time.
Investigation report filed by police under "C" class was disposed of by Magistrate under "B" class (false case) with direction to take action against complainant party of police officials
Validity
Material collected during course of investigation was not sufficient enough to declare that FIR lodged by police officials was maliciously false yet such material was sufficient to take cognizance against accused persons
High Court modified findings of Magistrate by converting category of case from "B" class to "C" class
Some material had come on record against police officials in respect of suspicious encounter resulted into death of three persons and the same needed high standard inquiry against police officials
High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. directed Inspector General of Police to conduct departmental inquiry into the matter
Application was disposed of accordingly.
Passing of stricture against the applicants by the Trial Court while allowing the application of the accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.
Scope
Section 26 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 povided that before taking action and declaring responsible any police officer or seizer or witness for fake, vexatious recovery, seizer and arrest, holding of detailed enquiry was necessary and no declaration could be made without holding such enquiry
Principles of natural justice and rule of audi alteram partem, particularly the provisions of S.24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 demanded that before taking any adverse action against any person, he was to be afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing
Impugned order showed that neither any notice was issued to the applicants nor they were afforded any opportunity of hearing to explain their position
Applicants being star witnesses of the case had not been examined, therefore, they were not subjected to cross-examination besides their version was not brought on record
Statement of hostile witness had created sufficient doubt in the prosecution evidence regarding acquittal of accused applicant
Impugned order to the extent of acquittal of the accused applicant needed no interference
Benefit of slightest doubt in prosecution case must be extended in favour of the accused
Impugnedorder, to the extent of passing stricture against the applicants, was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to hold enquiry as contemplated under S.26 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, in its letter and spirit after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the applicants
Impugned order to the extent of acquittal of accused applicant under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., was kept intact
Application along with pending application was disposed of accordingly.
Court, in respect of some unforeseen events arising in any case for which no provision has been made, are deemed to have inherent jurisdiction in interest of orderly dispensation of justice unless and until prohibited by statutory provisions of statute.
Court may consolidate different suits to avoid conflict of judgments provided parties in the suits are the same and cause of action is common.
"Inherent jurisdiction", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124946971
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Inherent jurisdiction"
2003 P T D 1477
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI Versus CUSTOMS, EXCISE, SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and another
Court: Karachi High CourtP L D 1956 (W
ISMAIL A. MUNSHEY‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent
Court:P L D 1983 Peshawar 76
MUSA KHAN‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent
Court: ‑‑ S. 307/34 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A--‑Attempt to murder--‑Case not one of patent injustice or extraordinary circumstances‑--Sentence awarded by Sessions Judge legal and not excessive‑--Held, inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S. 561‑A, Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked in such case to upset findings of facts reached by Courts below.‑Sentence.P L D 2016 Supreme Court 55
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Appellant Versus AHMED NAWAZ JAGIRANI and others — Respondnets
Court: High Court2005 P Cr
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT RAWALAKOT and 3 others — Petitioners Versus SHABBIR ABBASI and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)1983 P L C 119
SIND ALKALIS LTD. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, IV SIND LABOUR COURT AND 2 OTHERS
Court: Karachi High CourtP L D 1987 Lahore 633
Sh. SARDAR ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus The STATE and another‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 145‑‑Elements essential for foundation of jurisdiction under S. 145, Cr.P.C. and the mode in which such jurisdiction has to be exercised‑‑Distinction‑‑Where said elements exist, they are sufficient to ,vest the Magistrate with the jurisdiction to make the preliminary order in the mode prescribed therein‑‑Where the Magistrate, after acquiring jurisdiction did not strictly comply with the other requirements of S. 145, Cr.P.C. as to the form of the order and did not state the ground of his being so satisfied, such order, no doubt, was defective but that did not mean that order was also without jurisdiction‑‑Mere omission to state ground upon which the Court was satisfied in the initial order under 5.145, Cr.P.C. would not necessarily make the order also without jurisdiction as failure to do so was a non‑compliance with a rule of procedure and mere non‑compliance with a rule of procedure generally was not am illegality vitiating entire proceedings‑‑Sessions Judge, therefore, was not deprived of his jurisdiction to make any order‑‑Sessions Judge's order directing Magistrate to take steps to restore possession of the disputed property to the respondent concerned, was not open to any valid exception and was not liable to be interfered with under 5.561‑A, Cr.P.C. in circumstances. ‑‑‑Jurisdiction.P L D 1968 Lahore 144
S. A. LATIF‑Petitioner Versus NADIR KHAN‑Respondent
Court: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----S. 47 read with S. 21 Validity of decree can be challenged in execution proceedings on ground of jurisdiction, only if Court is lacking in "inherent" jurisdiction‑Question of place of suing does not relate to "inherent" jurisdiction of Court‑Examples of lack of "inherent" jurisdiction: that Court could not have seizen of case because subject‑matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that decree was passed against a dead defendant; etc.‑Objection relating to territorial jurisdiction of Conciliation Court‑Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961), S. 6(1)‑Mahbub Hussain v. Anjuman Imdad Qarza A I R 1942 Lah. 129 ref. and dissented from.1981 C L C 1323
Syed AKHTAR HUSSAIN ‑Defendant/Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR ALAM AND ANOTHER‑Plaintiff/ Respondents
Court: Karachi2015 G B L R 188
Mst. NANI through Legal Heirs and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Appellate Court