Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3318 = 1963 SLD 3318 = 1963 PLD 115
Sindh High Court
Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1959, decided on 25th September 1962.
Presented By: Inamullah and Abdur Rahim Kharal, JJ  
Muhammad Shaft for Appellants.   Sadiq for
Respondents No. 1-4.   Ihsanul Haq for
Respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 9.   Tufailah Attorney-General of Pakistan : Amicus curate.   Date of hearing : 20th September, 1962.

Haji MANZOOR AHMED AND ANOTHER-Appellants  

VERSUS

  Syed MAHBOOB SHAH AND OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 92 read with S. 93 "Advocate-General" Means Advocate-General of Province -Attorney-General not empowered to exercise ,functions of Advocate -General.   Kadir Bux and others v. The Crown P L D 1955 F C 79 ref. JUDGMENT   INAMULLAH, J.--This is an appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, Karachi in a suit under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The dispute in this case relates to a mosque known as Juma Masjid Arambag and the shops attached thereto. It would be sufficient for the disposal of this appeal to state that respondents 1 to 4 filed Suit No. 785/58 in the Court of the District Judge, Karachi under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code on a number of grounds.   In appeal Mr. Shafi, the learned Advocate for the appel lant, has contended that thecondition precedent to a suit under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is that there should be a consent in writing of the Advocate-General to institute a suit for the reliefs mentioned in clauses 1 (a) to (h) of section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, In the present case, the certificate has been granted by the Attorney-General of Pakistan on 26-4-1958. We thought it necessary to issue notice to the learned Attorney-General of Pakistan to address us if the certificate given by his predecessor in office was a valid one.   Mr. Tufailali, the learned Attorney-General, appeared before us in response to thenotice and has candidly conceded, giving reasons for his concession, that the Attorney-General had no power to issue a certificate as contemplated by section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.   The learned Attorney-General based his contention on the assumption that at therelevant time when the certificate was issued Karachi was Centrally Administered Area. Karachi being Centrally Administered Area and not forming part of the Pro vince, the Advocate-General of the Province could not be the Advocate-General for Karachi. This proposition could not be challenged in law. The learned P L D 1963 (W Attorney-General argued that `Advocate-General' in section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 has a reference only to the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register