| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2655 = 1962 PLD 82 |
Quetta High Court
Second Civil Appeals No. 10 and 13 of 1961, decided on 2nd August 1962.
Presented By: S. A. Mahmood and Anwarul Haq, JJ
Muhammad Nawaz Ahmed and Muhammad Arif for Appellants. Yahya Bakhtiar and Muhammad Fazil for
Respondents. Date of hearing : 26th July 1962.
Second Civil Appeals No. 10 and 13 of 1961, decided on 2nd August 1962.
Presented By: S. A. Mahmood and Anwarul Haq, JJ
Muhammad Nawaz Ahmed and Muhammad Arif for Appellants. Yahya Bakhtiar and Muhammad Fazil for
Respondents. Date of hearing : 26th July 1962.
Second Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1961 DOST MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER- Defendant-Appellants
VERSUS
RAIS SATIK AND ANOTHER-Plaintiff-Respondents AND Second Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1961. DHANI BAKHSH-Petitioner' versus RAIS WALI MUHAMMAD-Respondent
Law: Central Laws (Statues Reforms) Ordinance (XXI of 1960)
Section: Ss. 2, 3, 4 & 5
Practice-Point not raised before lower appellate Court (Majlis-I-Shoora, Kalat), nor in grounds of appeal before High Court-Not allowed to be raised in arguments. Witness-Administration of oath (Muhammadan Law Hanafi School)---Not necessary-[Mst. Bibi Lal Bibi v. Mir Baluch Khan and another P L D 1962 Quetta 28 followed]. Central Laws (Statute Reform) Ordinance (XXI of 1960), Ss. 2, 3, 4 & 5"Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani, Kalat"-Repealed impliedly-Not repealed in entirety-Extent of repeal indicat ed by "corresponding" provisions of Central Laws---Rest of "Dastur" still in operation-"Corresponding"-Meaning- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)Application to former Kalat State. The Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani, Kalat, has not been expressly repealed, by the Central Laws (Statute Reform) Ordinance, 1960 as it does not appear in the First Schedule referred to in section 2 of the Ordinance. But, as the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by virtue of section 3 of Ordinance (XXI of 1960) is to be deemed to have been extended to the Kalat area from the fourteenth day of October, 1955, the Dastur-ul-Amal is to be deemed to be impliedly repealed by virtue of section 4 of the Ordinance in respect of portions "corresponding" to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The word "corresponding" or the phrase "to correspond" does not usually or properly mean "to be identical with", but "to harmonize with" or "to be suitable to" (Stroud's Judicial Dic tionary, 3rd Edition, page 645). According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word "correspond" means "to be in harmony", "be similar", "analogous". Thus in order that a law may be a law "corresponding" to another law, it should deal broadly with matters dealt with in the other law. It need not be substantially and materially identical with the other law. Viewed in this broad sense, the Dastur-ul-Amal Diwarti, Kalat, 1952, apps to be a law corresponding to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, inasmuch as both the laws are intended to…