Practice

Order passed by two Judges of a Bench of Supreme Court cannot take precedence over an order of three Judges Bench.

Court could not base its finding upon the material not before it.

Courts, in appeal cases, should pronounce their opinion on all the relevant points which arise or have been raised in a case

Court has to look into all the relevant points though not raised or argued at the Bar

Omission on the part of lower Court on whose orders appeals are permissible to the Supreme Court to decide all points is a grave omission and cannot lightly be ignored

Judicial order has to be self-speaking.

[Judgment].

Rule stated therein not only requires to be interpreted and applied in circumstances of present case but may also require modification or further amplification-Matter to be heard by a larger Bench of at least 5 Judges.

Divergence of opinion in decided cases on point-Point involved a matter of considerable importance and was likely to affect large number of cases-Divergence of opinion, held, should be settled by an authoritative decision of a larger Bench.

Point never urged before settlement authority or 9n High Court, nor leave granted by Supreme Court for appeal on such point-Point also necessitating investigation into facts-Such new point, held, could not be allowed to be raised at late stage of hearing appeal-Objecting party, hell further, should have raised points before and pointed out defect to Settlement authority and not allowed him to assume jurisdiction not vested in him.

Matter sub-judice in High Courts Labour Covet not competent to adjudicate upon such matter.

Practice-Point not raised before High Court-Not allowed to be raised before Supreme Court.

Practice-Appreciation of evidence by Courts below-Supreme Court does not entertain contentions on subject.

(b) Practice-High Court-High Court will be slow in disturbing finding of fact and shall give proper weight to views of trial Judge as to credibility of witnesses.

Practice -Party's representative praying adjournment for his inability to attend due to wife's serious illness-Court receiving such request after orders passed in case Court, in circumstances, held, though could not adjourn, decision nevertheless set aside and case remanded for hearing arguments of representative of such party-West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance (IV of 1968), S. 16.

Practice - (Supreme Court)- Concurrent finding of fact in civil matters-Supreme Court will not interfere unless finding was based on "no evidence or upon misreading of evidence "(Finding that gift was not completed by delivery of possession up to a certain date).

Pure point of law may be allowed to be raised in second or Letters Patent Appeal for first tune if no prejudice is caused to other party-(Question involved; validity of gift as to part which is undivided)-[Nadir Shah v. Lai Shah and another P L D 1954 Lab. 447 ; Mongal Much; v. Abu Musa Mustafa and others P L D 1958 Dacca 26 ref. ; Shugan Chand and others v. Shiker Chand and others A I R 1925 Lah. 192 ; Basheshar Das v. Diwan Chand and others A I R 1933 Lab. 615 and Thakur Modhu Singh and another v. Lieut James R. R. Skinner and others A I R 1942 Lab. 243 distinguished ; Jandoo Khan v. Hakim Muhammad Ishaq P L D 1964 Kar. 61 Subhani alias Sobho v. Mst. Satbai P L D 1964 Kar. 206 ref. and Muhammad Hussain v. Messrs Pakistan Boot House P L n 1959 Kar. 360 considered].

Legal point as distinguished from point of jurisdiction may be permitted to be raised at a subsequent stage-Jurisdiction, objection as to-Means objection regarding competency or constitution of forum-Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (VI of 1957), S. 3-A-Objection based on S. 3-A concerns a legal point and not a point of jurisdiction-[Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1964 S C 829 ref.].

Practice New plea as to acquirement of ownership rights by extinguishment of occupancy tenancy under S. 114, Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), not raised at any stage of case-Not allowed to be raised in second appeal-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100.

Art. 215, read with Arts. 2, 4, 98 & 101-(National languages)-Rules of High Court requiring petitions, etc. to be submitted in English language-Not repugnant to any provision of Constitution, neither void nor inoperative or of no legal effect-Constitution does not debar or prohibit use of English until its replacement-Permission in Art. 215 to use English suspends operation of substantive provision till such replacement-Interpretation of statutes-No words are redundant or surplusage -Meaning must be given to every word and provision read as a whole in fair and impartial manner in ordinary and general sense-Writ petition against Registrar High Court's order returning a criminal revision petition drawn up in Bengali, instead of English, held, rightly rejected by High Court-No violation of any provisions of Art. 2 or 4 -Practice (Supreme Court)-Litigant being illiterate or unacquainted with English appearing in person, allowed to address Court in his own language Indulgence cannot be claimed as of right.

Evidence claimed by party to be establishing fraud not produced either before Custodian or before High Court-(Additional evidence)-Party not permitted to rely on such evidence.

(a) Practice-Suit by sons challenging gift made by their father under undue influence in favour of their stepmother-Objection that suit was not competent during life-time of father who was supporting gift-Death of father during pendency of suit-Held that suit already instituted could proceed unhampered without requiring plaintiff's to institute fresh suit for precisely same relief.

(i) Practice-Party placing documents on record of case cannot contend that Court should not look into them.

New law point-Can be allowed to be raised in appeal-But case not made out in pleading not to be allowed to be raised in appeal.

Practice Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner, neither perverse nor unreasonable-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Two suits, one in Revenue Court and other in Civil Court, pending between same parties regarding, same matter-Proceedings in Revenue Court be stayed.

Practice Practice-Suit by one party pending in Revenue Court, while suit of other party pending in Civil Court-Parties and subject-matter of suits same-Proceedings in Revenue Court stayed on condition that defendant in Revenue Court should deposit amount claimed by plaintiff in Court.

Practice Practice-Mis-description of law in petition to be ignores and Court to consider substance of petition.

Practice Practice- Miscellaneous petition against Lambardar dismissed by Collector-No appeal or revision competent against order of Collector.

Practice Practice-Concurrent findings of fact by Collector arid Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner not perverse or unreasonable-Cannot be interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Practice-Concurrent findings of fact by Collector and Commissioner-Not interfered with.

Practice Person, by getting a declaration from Court, likely to gain an advantage as regards his rights-Cannot be refused declaration on ground of want of locus standi.

S. 64-Appeal-PartiesThirteen appeals disposed of together by one order - Party impleaded in 10 of such appeals but not in other 3 -Each party's case considered separately by Appellate Authority-Held no illegality was committed by Appellate Authority in disposing of appeals. Authority, or in grounds of appeal or concise statement before Supreme Court-Not allowed to be raised in argument-Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 64-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 160.

Disposal of two cross-cases by one judgment not illegal-Care muss, however, be taken that each case is disposed of separately on material on its record without reference to material on record of other case

(Obiter).

-O. XLI, r. 31Judgment in appeal-First appellate authority omitting to refer to each witness by name and to each document by description-Such authority, however, giving its views of the evidence on record R. 31, held, substantially complied with.

S. 111-Plea against mode of partition not raised in appeal before Collector not allowed to be raised in Second Revision before Board.

Practice -Reference to Full Bench-Point determined previously by Full Bench-Can, in case of doubt be referred afresh to another. Full Reach-Letters Potent (Lahore), Cl. 26.

Practice -(Supreme Court)-Law point not raised in petition for special leave to appeal, nor in further additional grounds or in concise statement-Allowed to be argued in absence of objection from other party.

Practice -(Supreme Court) Plea (involving question of fact) not taken before High Court-Whether can be allowed in Supreme Court.

Point not taken before Custodian or in concise statement-Not allowed to be raised during argument.