| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1390 2018 SLD 1390 2018 PLD 274 |
Cons. P. No. D-206 of 2008, decision Dated: 26-12-2017, hearing Date : 16-09-2017.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE, ABDUL MALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Mehar Khan for Petitioner. Ishtiaq A. Memon for
Respondent No. 3.
HUSSAIN DEVELOPERS
VS
1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARACHISOUTH AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 6,115
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XII, R.6---Admission--- Scope--- Admission in written statement can be in respect of entire claim or even for a part of claim for which decree can be passed separately---Either party is enabled at any stage of suit to obtain or an appropriate order---Wide discretion has been conferred under O. XII, R. 6, C.P.C. on Court and the Court may, at any stage of suit, on application of any party, without determination of any other question, make such order giving such as it may think fit on the basis of admission of fact made in pleadings or otherwise--- Judgment on admission is not a matter of right but is in discretion of Court if a case involves questions which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under O. XII, R. 6, C.P.C.---Court may in exercise of its discretion refuse the motion---Admission before Court, under O.XII, R.6, C.P.C., must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional or unequivocal. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115 & O. XII, R. 6---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Amendment of decree--- Scope--- On the basis of admission made by defendant in its written statement, Trial Court passed decree in favour of plaintiff---Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction not only maintained and decree passed by Trial Court but also modified the decree by imposing new conditions in it---Validity---Court in its revisional jurisdiction could not travel beyond the scope of S.115 C.P.C. and could not go into the matters not relevant for the purposes of testing jurisdictional error committed by Court below---Revision was a matter between superior Court and subordinate Court regarding the matter in exercise of jurisdiction---Appeal was a substantive right whereas revisional jurisdiction was discretionary---Appellate Court could exercise all powers of Trial Court, whereas revisional jurisdiction was a part of general appellate jurisdiction---While affirming order passed by Trial Court, revisional Court added some further relief and directions which were unwarranted and not commensurate to revisional jurisdiction exercised by revisional Court---High Court modified and annulled…
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