| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 435 2022 SLD 435 2022 YLR 310 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 3078 of 2020, decision dated: 25-05-2021. Date of Hearing: 10-03-2021.
FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM, JANDRAN, JUSTICE
Ali Nawaz Kharal and Rana Rashid Javed for Petitioner. Mian Ahmad Khan for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Muhammad Zunair Seemab for
Respondent No. 4. Ch. Zaheer Akhtar for
Respondent No. 7.
Writ Petition No. 3078 of 2020, decision dated: 25-05-2021. Date of Hearing: 10-03-2021.
FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM, JANDRAN, JUSTICE
Ali Nawaz Kharal and Rana Rashid Javed for Petitioner. Mian Ahmad Khan for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Muhammad Zunair Seemab for
Respondent No. 4. Ch. Zaheer Akhtar for
Respondent No. 7.
ALI AKHTER HUSSAIN SHAH
VS
MODEL PROJECT (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 6 OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 96,2(2)
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 96, 2(2) O. VII, R. 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Rejection of plaint--- Appealable order---Decree---Maintainability---Alternate remedy---Statutory remedy---Scope assailed the dismissal of his suit---Validity---Suit was dismissed in terms of O. VII R. 11(d) of the C.P.C., which had made the impugned order appealable in terms of S. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the expression “decree” envisaged in S.2(2) of C.P.C. included rejection of the plaint---Order impugned, therefore, for all intents and purposes was appealable in terms of S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure--- One of the material requirements for availing remedy under Art. 199 of the Constitution was when no other alternative, efficacious remedy was available---Constitutional petition in the present case was filed when not only adequate and efficacious but a statutory remedy was available---Trial Court, however, had not prepared the decree sheet---No person could be allowed to suffer or his right be prejudiced on account of an act of the court---Drawing up of a decree was the duty of the Trial Court and there was no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribed a time for drawing a decree---Trial Court was directed to draw a decree in terms of the impugned order---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Akbar Khan v. Aksar Khan and others C. R. No. 138 of 2013 rel. (b) Administration of justice--- ----None should suffer due to any act, omission on the part of court. [p. 312] C JUDGMENT FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Through the instant writ petition (the petition), petitioner impugns order dated 10.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad-East, whereby application under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the respondent No. 4 was allowed, consequently suit of the petitioner seeking decree for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. 2. It is imperative to mention operative para-6 of the impugned order which reads as under:- ‘Section 32 bars a suit to challenge a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration…
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