| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1468 2018 SLD 1468 2018 YLR 1234 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 6472 of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 10-05-2017.
MUHAMMAD ALI, JUSTICE
Syed Tajammal Hussain Bukhari for Petitioner. Syed Kabeer Ahmad and Zafar Iqbal Batalwi for
Respondents.
W.P. No. 6472 of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 10-05-2017.
MUHAMMAD ALI, JUSTICE
Syed Tajammal Hussain Bukhari for Petitioner. Syed Kabeer Ahmad and Zafar Iqbal Batalwi for
Respondents.
AZHAR IQBAL
VS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL AND 3 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115--- Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Jurisdiction in terms of S.115, C.P.C. is primarily meant for correction of jurisdictional defect, error, material illegalities or irregularities. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Wrong provision of law---Effect---Merely mentioning wrong provision of law or making wrong headnote in heading of the application hardly makes any difference; what is required to be seen is gist and substance of the matter---Merely writing something different in headnote of the application does not change its substance and complexion. Sohail Farooq v. Farzana Rafique and others 2017 YLR 1300 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 11, 115 & O. XVIII, R. 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Res Judicata, principle of---Applicability---Defendant filed application for producing additional evidence but same was dismissed by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court---Subsequently defendant filed another application for same relief which was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Validity---Principle of Res Judicata was equally applicable to miscellaneous applications filed during pendency of suit---Earlier order passed in revision petition through which same witness was not allowed to be produced in evidence had attained finality and was not challenged any further---After dismissal of earlier application there was no occasion to allow subsequent application with similar prayer in second round---Matter could not be subsequently reopened to treat same under different provision of law---High Court set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court as same was illegal and without lawful authority---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Mst. Iqbal Begum through her Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Akbar and 5 others 1992 CLC 232 ref. Messrs New Rahat Engineering Works through Proprietor and 4 others v. National Bank of Pakistan and another 2003 CLD 282; Kharati and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others 1989 CLC 894 and Muhammad Anwar v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others PLD 2013 SC 255 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY:…
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