Jurisdictional defect

2020 CLC 1340 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdictionMisreading of evidenceNon-reading of evidenceJurisdictional defectScope

Appraisal of evidence is the function of courts below and if the findings are based on proper appraisal of evidence then the same cannot be interfered with lightly, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Party approaching the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution has to demonstrate that there is gross misreading or non-reading of the evidence or any jurisdictional defect floating on the surface.

2020 CLC 910 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdictionScopeJurisdictional defectEffect

High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction can neither substitute findings of the facts recorded by the appellate court nor can give its opinion regarding adequacy and quality of evidence as the assessment and appraisal of the evidence is the function of lower court, which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in this regard

Petitioner is required to show any illegality or jurisdictional defect committed by the lower courts in order to make his case entertainable by High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction.

2016 PLD 121 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Jurisdictional defectRules of consent, waiver, estoppel, acquiesce etc.

Parties could not confer jurisdiction upon a court or other judicial or quasi-judicial forum through consent which otherwise in law would have no jurisdiction and the same was the position regarding waiver and acquiescence qua the courts etc. which lacked jurisdiction and such being an inherent defect could not be cured on the rules of consent, waiver, estoppel, acquiesce etc.

2015 MLD 751 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 15 & 28Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional jurisdiction, invocation ofJurisdictional defectEjectment of tenantAppealCourt fee, affixation ofScope

Contention of tenant was that court fee was not affixed with memorandum of appeal and order of Appellate Court was not enforceable

Validity

No misreading, non-reading or misconception of evidence was evident from the impugned order

Findings of Appellate Court were found cogent and well-reasoned

Tenant was estopped to raise the objection which had been abandoned before the Appellate Court

Appellate Court should have provided an opportunity for making up the deficiency after determining the court fee leviable

Penal action of returning or dismissing appeal was jurisdictional defect and constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked

Appellate Court was directed by High Court to determine the leviable court fee and landlord to affix/deposit the same before the said court

Impugned order would be executable on deposit/affixation of leviable court fee

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.