| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1697 2021 SLD 1697 2021 PLD 700 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 3923 of 2016, C.M.A. No. 8642 of 2016 in C.P. 3923 of 2016, Civil Petitions Nos. 2875, 4159-4161 of 2019 and C.M.A. 7510 of 2019 in C.P. No. 2875 of 2019, decided on 15th October, 2020, Date of hearing: 15th October, 2020.
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Ghulam Mohyuddin Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 3923 of 2016). Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 2875 and 4159-4161 of 2019). Muhammad A
Civil Petition No. 3923 of 2016, C.M.A. No. 8642 of 2016 in C.P. 3923 of 2016, Civil Petitions Nos. 2875, 4159-4161 of 2019 and C.M.A. 7510 of 2019 in C.P. No. 2875 of 2019, decided on 15th October, 2020, Date of hearing: 15th October, 2020.
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Ghulam Mohyuddin Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 3923 of 2016). Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 2875 and 4159-4161 of 2019). Muhammad A
HAZRAT BILAL THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHErs
VS
MST. SPOGMAI AND OTHERS
Law: Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009
Section: 10(8)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 20,27,33
ShariahNizam-e-Adl Regulation (I of 2009)--- ----Para. 10(8)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, Rr. 20, 27 33---Appeal or revision---Appellate or revisional court to decide the appeal/revision within thirty days, without remanding it on any ground whatsoever [Paragraph 10(8) of the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009]---Scope---Present civil disputes were initiated during subsistence of the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009 (the 2009 Regulation) and proceeded thereunder---Civil revisions were filed before the High Court, which remanded all matters to the Trial Court for de-novo trial and/or after recording the evidence to hand-down the and decree---Legality---Examination of sub-clause. (8) of Paragraph 10 of the 2009 Regulation showed that neither the Appellate nor the Revisional Court had any jurisdiction to remand the matter---Both the appellate and the revisional Courts were mandated under the 2009 Regulations to decide the matter before them---Order XLI, R.27 of the C.P.C. empowered the Appellate Court to record and take evidence in cases under the 2009 Regulation---Moreover O.XLI, R.20 of the C.P.C., provided that any person who was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decree the appeal was preferred, but who had not been made a party to the appeal, and was interested in the result of the appeal, the Appellate Court may adjourn the hearing to a future date and direct that such person shall be made as respondent in the proceedings---Even otherwise, the Appellate Court in terms of R.33 of O.XLI of the C.P.C. enjoyed all the powers as may be possessed or exercised by the Court from which the appeal had originated except for imposing cost---In view of such enabling provision and jurisdiction of the Appellate Court, such jurisdiction and powers may also be exercised, within the bounds prescribed by law, by the Revisional Court i.e. the High Court in the present case---High Court was, thus, entrusted with the power and authority to take evidence itself instead of remanding the matter either to the Appellate Court or the Trial Court and/or where it was deemed appropriate, could add or join any party where it might considered it expedient to do…
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