Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115,O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115,O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Suo motu action---Limitation---Jurisdiction of High Court under S.115, C.P.C. is a supervisory jurisdiction of superintendence and control---High Court in its revisional jurisdiction can take cognizance for correction of illegalities and irregularities in s and orders of subordinate court as suo mote and no bar of limitation can be placed against suo motu jurisdiction of revisional court---Maximum period allowed for filing revision petition under S.115, C.P.C. by aggrieved person is 90 days. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115, proviso I & II---Expression "copies of pleadings, documents and order"---Scope---Copies of such documents are to be provided to the party who applies for it and it is not necessary that applicant is aggrieved or not---If any party to litigation applies under the law, the court is bound to provide the copy of the order within three days---Court is not a substitute of copying agency but the copy issued by court serves the requirement of law and revision is entertainable on the basis. of copy provided by the court---Court which passes the order only has to provide the copy of impugned order. Mst. Banori v Jilani through legal heirs and others PLD 2010 SC 1186 and Riasat Ali v. Muhammad Jafar Khan and 2 others 1991 SCAM 496 rel. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Suit for declaration---Interim injunction---Plaintiff claimed to be the bona fide purchaser of an exempted plot for valuable consideration but Development Authority wanted to cancel the same---Trial Court issued interim injunction for maintaining status quo but Lower Appellate Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court---Validity---Plaintiff was claiming himself to be the bona fide purchaser for value and he had to prove his case before civil court---Trial Court had rightly held that issuance of status' quo would be in the interest of both the parties but Lower Appellate Court had ignored pleadings of parties and as such order setting aside the interim injunction was erroneous---High Court in exercise of…

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