Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 1086 1986 SLD 1086 1986 PLD 14
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 744 of 1984, decision dated: 6-03-1985. (Onappeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated10-10-1983 in Civil Revision No. 619 of 1983)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain Advocate-on-Record (absent).

IH SANURREHMANvsMst. NAJMA PARVEEN

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)------------Art. 185 (3)-Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss. 4, 4-A, 47 & 48-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 2, 4, 115 & 141­West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Ss. 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 17 & 25-Custody of minor-Revision in guardianship matters before High Court-Leave to appeal granted inter alia to examine contention that of High Court, on which High Court, relied for holding that revision was competent viz Parveen v. Muhammad Azhar P L D 1975 Lab. 334 had been disapproved in Supreme Court Judgment Sakhawat Ali and another v. Mst. Shui Khelay P L D 1981 S C 454. Mrs. Parveen v. Kh. Muhammad Asghar P L D 1975 Lab. 334 and Manzoor Hussain's case P L D 1977 Lah. 911 not approved. Sakhawat Ali and another v. Mst. Shui Khelay P L D 1981 S C 454 mentioned. Mst. Zaibun Nisa v. Muhammad Mozammil P L D 1972 Kar. 410; Muhammad Ismail v. Mst. Zubeida Khatoon P L D 1973 Kar. 503 and Mst. Farida Parveen P L D 1971 Kar. 118 approved. Ghulam Hussain v. Mst. Farzana (minor) 1981 S C M R 953 ref. Muhammad Deen Malik 1982 S C M R 1223 disting. (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)----- ----S. 47, proviso [as amended by Guardians and Wards (Amend­ment) Ordinance (XI of 1980), S. 2]-Historical perspective of amendment in S. 47-Amendment made by legislature in . S. 47, held, was under some misapprehension. (e) Precedent--- --Two different views expressed by separate High Courts-Such views although have pursuasive value for each other but were not as such binding on each other. (d) Interpretation of statute---- --Presumption-Redundancy-Although presumption is that redun­dancy is not to be imputed to an enactment nor ignorance of law is to be imputed to law-making Agencies, but such presumption can differ from case to case-Superior Courts, in proper situations can make corrections where legislature is demonstrably shown to have made a visible error. (e) Interpretation of statute--- ------Amendment in law-Amendment in statute made earlier to decision of Supreme Court-.Such amendment, held, would not be deemed to have diluted, in any way, effect of law declared by Supreme Court-[Precedent]. Sakhawat Ali and another v. Mst.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492