| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2638 = 1962 PLD 69 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 38-D of 1960, decided on 25th January 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Ruhul Islam Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddlque Ahmad Chowdhury Attorney for Appellant. A. B. Mahmud Hussain Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Md. Jane Alam Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by A. W. Mallik Attorney for
Respondents Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6. T. H. Khan Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nurul Haq Bhuiyan Attorney for
Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 3 : Ex parte. Date of hearing : 25th January 1962.
Civil Appeal No. 38-D of 1960, decided on 25th January 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Ruhul Islam Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddlque Ahmad Chowdhury Attorney for Appellant. A. B. Mahmud Hussain Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Md. Jane Alam Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by A. W. Mallik Attorney for
Respondents Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6. T. H. Khan Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nurul Haq Bhuiyan Attorney for
Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 3 : Ex parte. Date of hearing : 25th January 1962.
MESSRS ABDUL MAJID & COMPANY-Appellant
VERSUS
THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. XLI, r. II-
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 16th April 1959, in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 634 of 1958). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. XLI, r. II--- Summary dismissal of appeal-Not to be resorted to where substantial questions of law involved. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------O. XLI, r. II-Summary dismissal of appeal-Does not " relieve Court of necessity of writing judgment "-Practice of not assigning " even brief' reasons ' for such dismissal disapproved-[Rami Deka v. Brojo Nath I L R 25 Cal. 97 rel.] Interpretation of Statutes------Statute replaced by another statute-Substantial provisions of certain section not changed in later statute, but " new arrangement or classification under certain headings " of such section introduced - Later provisions, held, do not invest section with a different meaning. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-----This !s a certificated appeal from the High Court of East Pakistan. It arises out of an order of a Division Bench of the said Court summarily dismissing a second appeal under Order XLI, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without giving any reason. The second appeal was against a judgment of reversal whereby the decree passed by the trial Court for a sum of Rs. 2,057-2-0 claimed by way of refund of excise duty was set aside and the suit dismissed. The said refund was claimed to be allowable as a rebate under rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as the betelnuts on which the said duty was paid had been P L D 1962 Supreme Court 69 exported to a foreign country without being off loaded anywhere in Pakistan. It Is not necessary for us to go into the facts of this case, for, upon a perusal of the judgment of the first Appellate Court we are satisfied that several substantial questions of law arose which merited consideration by the High Court in second appeal. Indeed, in the order of another Division Bench of the same High Court certifying the case to be fit for appeal to this Court the questions of law that arose for consideration have been set out as follows :- …