| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 2478 2002 SLD 2478 2002 PLD 491 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1966 of 2000, decided on 8th November, 2001.
HAMID ALI MIRZA AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Samad Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Petition No. 1966 of 2000, decided on 8th November, 2001.
HAMID ALI MIRZA AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Samad Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN and 5 others
VS
Chaudhry RIAZ AHMAD and 5 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Administration of justice--- ----Rules and regulations are only meant to streamline the procedure and administer the course of justice, but not to thwart the same. (b) Administration of justice- ---- Duty of the Court is to do substantial justice---Prime object behind all legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice---Mere technicality, unless offering insurmountable hurdle should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678; Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382; Nazir Ahmed and another v. Muhammad Din and another 2000 SCMR 440 and Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State 2001 SCMR 424 ref. (c) Administration of justice- ---- Legal precepts are devised with a view to impart certainty, consistency and uniformity to administration of justice and to secure the same against arbitrariness, errors of individual and mala fides. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Failure to sign written statement---Trial Court closed the defence of defendants for such failure---Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that neither' defendants signed written statement nor made any request to Trial court to permit them to sign the same, thus, no indulgence should have been shown to them and discretion exercised by Trial Court was apt and proper---Validity--Such sort of approach to determine the lis was not appreciated---Duty of the Court was to do substantial justice Defendants had been made to suffer simply on a technical ground---Much time of the Courts had been wasted on such a very trivial issue; which could have been resolved simply by passing an order calling upon the defendants to sign their written statement-Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case to Trial Court for its decision on merits. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----O- VIII, R.10---Failure to file written statement--Penal consequences as envisaged in O. VIII, R.10, C. P. C., would not attract to a case, where only routine order for filing of written statement was made by Court, rather…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492