| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3028 = 2001 SLD 3028 = 2001 YLR 147 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.46 of 2001, decided on 30th May, 2001
Presented By: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
Khalid Naveed Dar for Petitioner, Muhammad Ghani for
Respondent Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Writ Petition No.46 of 2001, decided on 30th May, 2001
Presented By: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
Khalid Naveed Dar for Petitioner, Muhammad Ghani for
Respondent Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
NASIR MUSTAFA FEROZE‑‑‑Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXII, 1
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 156, 159
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 478, 482
Law: Trade Mark Act, 1940
Section: 20, 21
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, R. 1‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Father having died during pendency of Constitutional petition his son filed application for impleading him as party/ petitioner which application was allowed by High Court and applicant filed an amended petition‑‑‑Respondent had contended that after death of father of applicant the petition had become infructuous and applicant could not get himself substituted in place of his father‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Proceedings in Constitutional petition were pari materia with suit and provision of O.XXII, C. P. C. was applicable to Constitutional petition and same would not abate on death of one petitioner and person represented could continue the proceedings‑‑‑Once an application to bring legal representative having common grievance and seeking same relief was on the file to implead him as party, he could take up the case from the stage at which it was at the time of death of the petitioner. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.156 & 159‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Investigation by Police‑‑‑Police could not be given free hand to run investigation according to its whim‑‑‑High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction was competent to pass appropriate orders where investigation was mala fide or without jurisdiction. Shehnaz Begum v. Honourable Judges of High Court Sindh and Balochistan PLD 1971 SC 677; 1986 SCMR 1934; Anwaar Ahmad v. State 1996 SCMR 24 and Muhammad Latif, A.S.‑I. v. Sharifan Bibi 1998 SCMR 666 ref. (c) Interpretation of statutes Whenever there was a general enactment and a special enactment, the special enactment would override the general enactment and special law would prevail and special procedure must be followed and not the ordinary. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 478 & 482‑‑‑Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.20‑‑‑Initiation of action for infringement of unregistered trade mark‑‑ Bar‑‑‑No action for infringement of unregistered trade mark could be initiated on account of bar contained in S.20 of Trade Marks Act, 1940. NLR 2000 SC 522; Riasat Ali v. Asad Rafique and others…