| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 640 2020 SLD 640 2020 PLD 221 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 455 of 2012 and Civil Petition No. 1173 of 2012, decision Dated: 23-12-2019, hearing Date : 23-12-2019. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 5-3-2012, passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench in C.Rs. Nos. 131 of 2004 and 35 o
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Haji Sabir Hussain Tanoli, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record M. Ayub, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Raja M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court Respo
Civil Appeal No. 455 of 2012 and Civil Petition No. 1173 of 2012, decision Dated: 23-12-2019, hearing Date : 23-12-2019. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 5-3-2012, passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench in C.Rs. Nos. 131 of 2004 and 35 o
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Haji Sabir Hussain Tanoli, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record M. Ayub, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Raja M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court Respo
MST. GULNAZ AND ANOTHER
VS
HAJI MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(2)(e),185(3)
(a) Judgment --- ----Judgment "varied"---Connotation. If a was to change or alter or modify the ruling of the court below, it would be said that the had varied the ruling of the lower court. However, where the same was set aside, or upheld, no modification took place and the impugned ruling of the court below was either accepted in toto or reversed absolutely. Where a was partially upheld, and partially reversed, and only that part of the had been challenged which was partially maintained, then the same could not fall under the ambit of "variation", and would have to be considered as a "upheld" to one extent, and a "set aside" to the rest of it. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 185(2)(e) & 185(3)---Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court---Appeal before the Supreme Court---Competency---Judgment "varied"---Connotation---Present case involved matter pertaining to property valued at more than Rs.50,000/- in the Trial Court, however, the High Court had "varied or set side the part of , decree or final order of the court immediately below", as required under Art.185(2)(e) of the Constitution---Appellant had only impugned that part of the of the High Court which dismissed the claim of the appellant in the civil revision,therefore, the present appeal under Art.185(2)(e) of the Constitution was not competent and the appellant was required to file a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal under Art.185(3) of the Constitution, in such eventuality---Portion of the of the High Court which varied the of the lower court was in favour of the appellant and that portion was not challenged by the appellant rather appellant has challenged a portion of the of the High Court as well as the two fora below whereby her claim was concurrently dismissed by all the three fora below, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant was not competent; she was required to file a Petition for Leave to Appeal. THIS JUDGMENT PASSED BY: AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- The Appellant, who filed a Suit for Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell, has impugned the judgment dated 05.03.2012 of the learned Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, whereby a Civil Revision bearing No. 131…
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