Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 2004 2026 SLD 2004 = 2026 CLC 446
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Civil Revision Application No. S-274 of 2024, decided on 7th April, 2025.
Presented By: Before Dr. Syed Fiaz ul Hasan Shah, J
Abid Hussain Chang for Applicant. Nabi Bux Narejo for
Respondents. Ayaz Ali Rajpar, Additional Advocate General, Sindh for
Respondents.

ABDUL GHAFFAR through Special Attorney ---Applicant

VERSUS

YASIR and 5 others ---Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115,X,1,XII,6,XIV,XV,XVII

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42,54

(a)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Revisional power of High Court extends only to error of law or material irregularity, including misreading and non-reading of evidence, that may significantly impact outcome of a case. (b)    Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115, O.X, R.1, O.XII, R.6, O.XIV, O.XV & O.XVII---Suit for declaration and injunction---Admission of fact---Effect---Phrase at the first hearing of the case ---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Applicant / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property and respondent / defendant was only Benami owner--Both the Courts below dismissed suit and appeal filed by applicant / plaintiff--Validity---By using discretion, procedural law framed was not to be ignored--Court could not skip any mandatory procedure of cumulative effect of O.X, R.1, O.XIV and O.XV, C.P.C.---Phrase at the first hearing of the case means the stage of preliminary examination and settlement of issues and straight away lending on O.XVII, C.P.C.---Demand of evidence cannot be termed as discretion but contrary to the language of O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. which read without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties and has made it mandatory upon Court to first deal with the issue of admission and to decide the same through speaking order---Rights of parties cannot be huddled while hanging the point of admission---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh---Revision was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Rafique and others v. Manzoor Ahmad and others 2020 SCMR 496; Parivar Seva Sansthan v. Dr. Ms. Veena Kalra AIR 2000 Delhi 349 DB; ITDC Ltd. v. Messrs Chander Pal Sood and Sons, 84 (2000) DLT 337 DB; Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan v. Returning Officer, PP-12 and others 2015 SCMR 1698; 2012 SCMR 251; 2019 MLD 61; 2017 SCMR 855; PLD 2004 Lah. 125; 1994 CLC 123; PLD 2020 Lah. 1166; Mc Donald Layton and Company Pakistan Ltd. v. Uzin…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register