Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1520 1994 SLD 1520 = 1994 PLD 127
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1157 of 1990, decided on 27th October, 1993. (On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 14-2-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in Writ Petition No. 908 of 1984).
Presented By: Present. Saeeduuaman Siddiqui, Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Mttharnmad Khan, JI
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant Tassadaq H. Gilani, Additional A.-G. and Rao Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. l to 3. S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No.4.

PIR BAKHSH---Appellant

VERSUS

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAW DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 5 others---Respondents

Law:

Section: 15

West Pakistan Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance (I of 1968)-_- ----S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the Political Assistant was properly authorized to dispose of the civil suits under S.15 of the Ordinance and that the proceedings conducted by the hierarchy of the special forums was within their jurisdiction or coram non judice. West Pakistan Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance (I of 1968)- . ----S. 15---Delegation of his power by Deputy Commissioner through notification was general authorization for the disposal of criminal and civil cases triable under the Ordinance for smooth and speedy disposal of cases-- Use of word "pending" in the said notification apparently appeared to be a clerical/typographical mistake and had no meaniog in the context of the notification---Officer authorized through the notification had all along been entertaining and disposing of cases for a long time and no body objected to his jurisdiction believing that he had. the valid delegated powers and when the mistake was noticed by the concerned authority, it was rectified---Held. Orders passed by the special forums on the authority of said notification did not suffer from any jurisdictional error and were not illegal in circumstances for Court, in order to avoid injustice and to give effect to the true intention of the law-maker could supply the inadvertent omission. Hasham Khan v. The State PLD 1991 SC 567; Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty PLD 1961 SC 119 and Muhammad Ismail v. The State PLD 1969 SC 241 ref. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant Tassadaq H. Gilani, Additional A.-G. and Rao Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. l to 3. S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1993. JUDGMENT. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J: --Pir Bakhsh, appellant herein, calls in question, through leave of the Court, the judgment, dated 14-2-1989 passed by a . learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby his Constitutional Petition No.908 of 1984 challenging…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register