| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1637 2014 SLD 1637 2014 CLC 207 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.19832 of 2010, heard on 29-05-2013.
MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Writ Petition No.19832 of 2010, heard on 29-05-2013.
MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and 5 otherss
VS
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 4 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12 (2) & O. I, R. 10---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside consent decree---Non-joinder of necessary party---Scope---Revisional Court directed the Trial Court to frame an issue, record the evidence and send the same to it for adjudication---Validity---Suit land was allotted under Ejectment Tenant Scheme and ownership of the same remained available with the Provincial Government---Status of allottee was only of tenant and Provincial Government was not made party to the impugned decree---Trial Court while dismissing the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. had recorded findings of fact without recording the evidence thus committed material illegality---Revisional Court was bound to examine the order of Trial Court as supervisor and not as Appellate Court---If the Revisional Court was of the opinion that recording of evidence was necessary then it was to remand the case for that purpose and to decide the same on merit---Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Trial Court to record the evidence and send the same to it for decision and by doing so illegality was committed by the said court---Impugned decree in exclusion of Provincial Government who was owner of the land in question was nullity in the eye of law and such aspect of the case had been ignored by the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court---Constitutional petition was allowed and impugned orders were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh after framing issues and recording evidence. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Revisional Court had to examine only three factors as detailed in S.115(1)(a), (b) and (c), C.P.C. and such powers were supervisory and not of a court of appeal---Revision was not a right but was a privilege and was available only where the right of appeal was not provided in the statute, whereas the appeal was right created by the statute. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 25 & S. 115---Power of Appellate Court---Scope of O.XLI, R.25, C.P.C. 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