Law: Succession Act, 1925

Section: 384(1),383(3)

Law: Succession Act, 1925

Section: 384(1),383(3)

(a) Pleadings-------Amendment of pleadings---Scope---Although courts were supposed to be liberal in granting amendments in pleadings but such liberty was not to be stretched to such an extent that parties were allowed to adopt a complete U-turn from what had originally pleaded; particularly in absence of any justifiable reason for getting the original pleadings amended---No amendment prejudicial to the interest of a party who, by means of the original pleadings, had accrued some rights; could be allowed under the law---Party to a proceedings, if once taken a particular stand, it was estopped to effect a change in the same and admissions made in pleadings could not be permitted to be retracted subsequently. (b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----Ss. 384 & 383--- Succession certificate--- Revision---Maintainability---Application of the respondent-Bank for amendment in its written reply in relation to the Bank Account of the deceased was allowed by the Trial Court---Said order of Trial Court was assailed by the petitioners---Contention of the respondent Bank was that revision against said order was not maintainable---Validity---Proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925, even if carried out by Civil Court, were always deemed to be proceedings before the District Judge---Right of appeal was available under section 384(1) of the Succession Act, 1925 in cases of granting , refusing or revoking of a certificate; whereas by virtue of section 383(3) the High Court was provided the right to entertain revision from an order of District Judge in cases other than the ones mentioned in section 384(1), Succession Act, 1925---Revision was therefore, competent. (c) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----S. 383(3)---Revision---Jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---High Court had inherent powers to look into and call for the record of any case which had been decided by any court subordinate to the High Court in which no appeal lay and if such subordinate court appeared to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Ch. Imran Hassan Ali for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Jan and…

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