Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 4019 1996 SLD 4019 , 1996 PLD 31
Quetta High Court
Civil Petition No.158 of 1995, decided on 20th November, 1995
Presented By: Before Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Muhammad Nawaz Marri, JJ
Tariq Mahmood for Petitioner. Basharatullah for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3
Respondents 4 and 5: Ex parte.

Mst. BIBI GULLA -Petitioner

VERSUS

ABDUL HAMID and 4 others -Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- S. 115 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 --- Constitutional petition ---Constitutional jurisdiction against orders passed by Civil Court in revision under. S.115, C. P.C. ---Extent---Aggrieved person can invoke Constitutional remedy subject to the condition that order under challenge had been passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction or that order in question, was void and was product of exercising authority unlawfully by the functionary who was required under the statute to pass right order in accordance with law --- No' absolute restriction has been imposed in invoking Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution against an order passed in revision under S.115, C.P.C. subject to condition that the same had been passed without lawful jurisdiction/authority or being void order, was not sustainable in the eye of law --- Whenever it was found that impugned order suffered from any of such legal defects, Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution could legitimately be invoked by an aggrieved person --- Where plaintiff had claimed her share out of legacy of her predecessor, defendants had not filed written' statement but instead submitted application mainly praying that stay order granted to plaintiff be withdrawn and suit filed by plaintiff be dismissed without stating relevant facts and law warranting its dismissal in summary manner --- Appellate Court instead of dilating upon merits of case or taking into consideration issue which had not been agitated before Trial Court, should have rejected revision with direction to defendants to file written statement incorporating objections regarding non maintainability of suit and then Trial Court, on having framed issue's and proceeding with the matter in accordance with law would have disposed of such objection --- Appellate Court having not exercised jurisdiction with lawful authority, its order in question, directing dismissal of suit was not sustainable-- Order of dismissal of suit was set aside and suit filed by plaintiff would be deemed to be pending and same was to be disposed of in accordance with law. PLD 1976…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register