| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 390 2025 SLD 390 = 2025 CLC 54 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No.216 of 2024, decided on 30th May, 2024.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ
Rafiq Ahmed Kalwar for Appellant. Haider Waheed, Hussain Idrees and Mehak Asghar for
Respondent on statutory notice under Rule XLIII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
High Court Appeal No.216 of 2024, decided on 30th May, 2024.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ
Rafiq Ahmed Kalwar for Appellant. Haider Waheed, Hussain Idrees and Mehak Asghar for
Respondent on statutory notice under Rule XLIII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
FARHAT RASHID---Appellant
Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972
Section: XII,13
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199,(1),(3)
Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section: XLIIII,3
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)-------S.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Jurisdiction of the Court---Whether Single Judge of High Court had erred in assuming jurisdiction---In respect of some past/future maintenance allowance, a direct Constitutional Petition was filed by the wife and children before the High Court ; despite office objections, High Court on the assumption of jurisdiction, passed an order directing appellant to deposit a certain amount---Appellant, being respondent in the constitutional petition in which impugned order was passed, filed intra-court appeal under S.3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---Plea of the appellant was that under wrong assumption of jurisdiction, impugned order was passed---Validity---Reliance of appellant to prefer appeal under S.3 of Ordinance, 1972 read with Art. 199, Cls. (1) of the Constitution was misconceived---In the first instance, the impugned order, admittedly, did not arise out of frame of Cl. (1) of Art. 199 of the Constitution; this would not only exclude the appellant from preferring an appeal but Cl. (3) of Art. 199 was also directly applied in the sense that it was only an ad interim order---No such appeal could be filed within the frame of S. 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, read with Art. 199 of the Constitution as the causes arising out of Cl.(1) of Art. 199 were primarily dealt with by Division Bench of the High Court as against rest of the other jurisdictions---Appellant may well address it under the principle of Kompetence-Kompetence and the Single Judge at best shall decide the issue of maintainability first before proceeding further in any manner --- Division Bench of the High Court remanded the case to the Single Judge who shall hear the counsel preferably on the maintainability issue first and shall then, if so required, proceed further as far as merits were concerned---Appeal stood disposed of accordingly.Messrs National Oil Refinery Ltd. v. Syed Mansoor Ali (High Court Appeal No.D-372 of 2023) ref.Date of hearing: 30th May, 2024.ORDERIn respect of some past/future maintenance, seemingly, a direct Constitution Petition No.S-637 of 2024 was filed before this Court on appellate side…
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