Appeal, Right of
Appeal, Right of legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Not a mere matter of procedure but a vested substantive right inheriting in a party from commencement of action in Court of first instance and governed by law prevailing at that time-Such right not to be taken away or be affected by subsequent legislation except by an express provision or by necessary implication-Constitution of India, Arts. 133, 135, 136 & 395 (Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 158, 163, 160 & 221)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 109 & 110 - (Indian) Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction) Act, 1947, Ss. 2 & 3-(Indian) Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act (V of 1949), Ss. 2, 5 & 6-Intetpretation of Statutes - Retrospective elect-Ramaswami Chettiar v. Official Receiver, Ramanathapuram at Madurai., A I R 1951 Mad. 1051; Veeraima v. China Venkanna A I R 1953 N4ad. 878; Prabirendra Mohan v. Behrampur Bank, Ltd. A I R 195:1 Cal. 289; Ram. Sahai v. Ram Sewak A I R 1956 All. 321; Tajamrnul Husain v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begurn A I R 1956 All. 638 and Indian Trade and General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Raj Mal Pahar Chand A I R 1956 Pb. 228 overruled.
"Appeal, Right of", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21979
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Appeal, Right of"
P L D 1979 Karachi 486
FAKHRO AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND). HYDERABAD
Court: S. 19(2) read with General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6-Omission of S. 18, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) giving right of appeal-Held, does not affect pending appeals-Right of appeal being vested statutory right cannot lapse on repeal of relevant provision of law-Appeals pending before Settlement Commissioner could not be made over to Additional Settlement Commissioner nor could same be disposed of by them as revisions.-Interpretation of statutes-Appeal (civil)-Revision (civil) .1976 P L C [C
M. RASHID KHAN Versus S. E. HIGHWAY CIRCLE
Court: 1976 P L C C.S.T. 35(1)P L D 1992 Supreme Court 643
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Petitioner Versus Sh: MUHAMMAD GULZAR and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1983 Peshawar 202
Mian HAYATULLAH (REPRESENTED BY HIS REPRESENTATIVES)‑ — Appellant Versus Mst. SHAMO‑SAHAR AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents
Court: -‑‑ S. 3‑Intra‑court appeal, right of‑Suit brought by plaintiff‑appellant at time when right of letters patent Appeal available to him‑Such right, held, cannot be affected despite promulgation of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.‑Letters Patent Appeal.1986 C L C 2057
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA — Appellant Versus FAZAL and others — Respondents
Court: ---Ss. 100, 102 & 115--Second appeal--Right of--Conversion of revision into second appeal--At time of institution of suit party having right to prefer second appeal, held, would have such right intact in spite of subsequent amendment of -S. 102, Civil Procedure Code, taking away right of second appeal--Revision filed by party under misapprehension of such right converted into second appeal by High Court.-- Revision (civil).1988 S C M R 1237
KAREEM BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL REHMAN‑‑Respondent
Court: High Court1977 P L C [G
Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,
Court: Federal Service TribunalP L D 1979 Peshawar 19
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA‑Petitioner‑Appellant Versus HAJI AHMAD‑Respondent
Court:P L D 1980 Peshawar 180
Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Appellant Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND 34 OTHERS‑RESPONDENTS
Court: ‑‑ S. 15(4) as amended by North‑West Frontier Province Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (IX of 1979)‑Second appeal, right of‑Right of appeal, a substantive right‑Cannot be taken away except by express provision or necessary intendment ‑Neither new S. 15 given retrospective effect expressly nor framer of law intending to take away right of appeal retrospectively‑Held, right of second appeal available to parties having right of appeal when ejectment application first brought before Rent Controller.‑Interpretation of statutes‑Second appeal.2003 M L D 1033
Messrs MEHRAJ (PVT.) LTD. — Petitioner Versus Miss LAIMA SAEED and others — Respondents
Court: Karachi