Home Maxims & Terms Revision jurisdiction of the court meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Revision jurisdiction of the court

Revision jurisdiction of the court legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2015 PLD 137 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 115Revision jurisdiction of the courtScope and nature

Revisional jurisdiction was a supervisory jurisdiction, which was vested in a higher forum (subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the case either the District Court or the High Court) and was exercised and/or was invoked for scrutiny if a 'case decided' by the court subordinate to the higher court's jurisdiction, suffered from any defect in terms of exercise of its jurisdiction and/or on the grounds(s) that the court subordinate had acted in exercise of such jurisdiction illegally and/or with material irregularity

Being a supervisory jurisdiction, the higher forum which was approached (i.e. the revisional court) was conferred with the power to ensure that the court subordinate thereto conformed to the parameters of its jurisdiction

Revisional jurisdiction was meant to rectify, to obviate, forefend and stage off the exercise of jurisdictional errors/defects and the illegalities and/or material irregularity committed by the subordinate court in such regard.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Revision jurisdiction of the court", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124953504

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Revision jurisdiction of the court"

SCMR 1996
Civil Petition for Leave. to Appeal No. 1,14/1 of,1.995, decided on 10th January, 1996.

1996 S C M R 437

and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FAZLAN BIBI and 4 other‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 2015
2014-November-17

P L D 2015 Supreme Court 137

MANDI HASSAN alias MEHDI HUSSAIN and another — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF — Respondent

Court: High Court
MLD 1994
N/A

1994 M L D 1513

Mst. ROSHAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (CONSOLIDATION), LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLRN 2016
Civil Revision Appln. No.32 of 2012, decided on 9th December, 2014.

2016 Y L R Note 1

SAJJAN through L. Hrs. and others — Applicants Versus SHER MUHAMMAD PHULPOTO through Attorney — Respondent

Court: Sindh (Sukkur Bench)
SCMR 1977
Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1971, decided on 30th March 1977.

1977 S C M R 306

SAEEDUDDIN AHMAD NAQVI AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR AND OTHERS — Respondents

Court: Art. 98‑Displaced Persons (Laud Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 19(2)‑‑‑Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XLII of 1956), S. 11(4) Writ Jurisdiction Revision- Jurisdiction-- Rehabilitation Commissioner having had Jurisdiction to entertain revision petition necessarily empowered to decide whether or not to condone delay in its presentation High Court, held, in circumstances ought not interfere with Rehabilitation Commissioners orders in its writ jurisdiction. Jurisdiction‑Revision (civil).
MLD 1989
Civil Revision No. 678 of 1988, decided on 16th May, 1989.

1989 M L D 4950

ZAKAR NAZAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus KHAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 2008
N/A

2008S81

SARTAJ KHAN and others — Appellants Versus ARSHAD ALI and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1985
Writ Petition No. 1179 of 1984, decided on 6th July, 1985.

P L D 1985 Lah

MESSRs MIAN BROTHERS AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, . MULTAN

Court: -- Art. 9-Constitutional petition - Delay in filing - Relevant order impugned in constitutional petition, having been challenged earlier through revision petition which was still pending -Delay in filing constitutional petition, per se, held, would not be fatal.Delay.
PLD 1991
1991-April-9

P L D 1991 Lahore 256

MUHAMMAD YAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 2021
2021-June-25

P L D 2021 Peshawar 166

TEHSILDAR, MARDAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus ASIF BACHA — Respondent

Court: High Court