| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1952 SLG 92 1952 SLD 92 1952 PLD 77 |
Lahore High Court
Petition No. 57 of 1951, decided on 25th October, 1951, under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, for revision of the order of M. Aslam Khan, Senior Subordinate Judge, Lahore, with enhanced appellate powers, dated the 28th February 1951
A. R. CORNELIUS, A. C., J
Muhammad Fazil, for Petitioner. Muhammad Latif, for
Respondent
Petition No. 57 of 1951, decided on 25th October, 1951, under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, for revision of the order of M. Aslam Khan, Senior Subordinate Judge, Lahore, with enhanced appellate powers, dated the 28th February 1951
A. R. CORNELIUS, A. C., J
Muhammad Fazil, for Petitioner. Muhammad Latif, for
Respondent
HATIM
VS
SHAH DIN
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXXIX,r.2(3),O.XIX
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- -----O. XXXIX, r. 2 (3)-Procedure expected of Court before imposing penalty-- Similar to that of Criminal Court. The penalties involved under r. 2 (3) of O. XXXIX, C. P. C., are clearly of a criminal nature, and, notwithstanding that no precise procedure has been laid down, it is expected that any Court which feels called upon to impose these penalties should proceed as -nearly as possible in the same manner as a criminal Court would proceed ; in other words, that at the earliest opportunity, when it has formed the opinion that facts exist which may require the imposition of the penalties, the Court shall. put the person at fault on this guard by framing a question or as an issue which should embody all the elements of a charge under the criminal jurisdiction. The facts should be briefly stated, as they are alleged to stand against the defaulter, and there should be a precise reference to the law under which the Court proposes to punish him, unless he shows cause against such punishment. In the absence of any such procedure, it is not possible to uphold the order of imprisonment and attachment. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- -----O. XIX-Case involving quasi criminal penalties-Not a suitable case for proof by affidavit. It is true that the provisions of O. XIX are couched in general terms, and that it lies within the discretion of the Court to make use of those provisions in an appropriate case. As a general rule, a case involving quasi criminal penalties is not a suitable case for the grant of permission to prove by affidavit, and the Civil Courts would do well in all such cases to adopt as nearly as may be the procedure which-is prescribed for the criminal Courts when applying similar remedies. Such a course will be directly in the interests of justice and will ensure that a full opportunity is allowed to the alleged defaulter to clear his position and explain the allegations against him, before the final order of conviction and punishment is trade. This is not to say that there cannot be cases where such penalties have been incurred, in which evidence may suitably be received on affidavit. JUDGMENT A. R.…
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