Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1760 2017 SLD 1760 2017 CLC 1546
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2016, decision Date : 07-06-2016 On appeal from the judgment of the High Court Dated 30.10.2014 in Writ Petition No. (sic) 30.10.2014
CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, JUSTICE, AND RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Rashid Abbasi, Advocate for the Appellants. Raja Amjid Ali Khan, Advocate for
Respondents.

FAZALUR-REHMAN AND 2 OTHERS

VS

PARVEEN AKHTAR AND 3 OTHERS

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2),11

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2) & O.VII, R.11---Suit for declaration for cancellation of compromise decree---Conversion of suit into application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Scope---Trial Court rejected the plaint and Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with the observation that remedy of filing an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was available---Applicants filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C. and challenged the legality of compromise decree---Trial Court rejected the said application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. but Appellate Court remanded the case for disposal on merits---High Court set aside the of Appellate Court with the observation that same had been passed without lawful authority having no legal effect---Validity---If Court was competent to hear the matter, it might convert appeal into revision, revision or appeal into writ petition or suit into application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Supreme Court observed that if conversion of lis from appeal into revision or suit into application was necessary for the ends of justice, Court should exercise such powers even without request or application---Suit should have been initially converted into application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Trial Court failed to act according to law which generated unnecessary litigation---Supreme Court converted suit into an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. remanded the case to the Trial Court where parties had to raise their point of view---Exercise of writ jurisdiction in circumstances was unwarranted---Impugned passed by the High Court was not sustainable which was recalled---Trial Court was directed to proceed with the matter according to law and decide the same on merit---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Neelum Valley Development Board and another v. Muhammad Saddique and another 2009 CLC 763; Noorul Amin and others v. Muhammad Hashim and others 1992 SCMR 1744; Thal Engineering Industries Ltd. v. The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. and another 1979 SCMR 32; Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others PLD 1987 SC 139; Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Rahim PLD 1984 SC 164; Latif-ur-Rehman v. Haji Farmanullah PLD 2014 Pesh.1; Amir…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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