Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 739 1992 SLD 739 1992 SCMR 1705
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.510-K of 1990, decision dated: 5-12-1991(On appeal from judgment dated 4-4-1989 of Sindh High Court, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad, passed in C.P. No.D-61 of 1989)
AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHLAR, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Director General, Military Lands and Cantonments Department, Rawalpindi and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)----S. 277---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether revision in circumstances of the case, was competent and if so, whether it was barred by time. (b) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----S. 277---Revision---Competency---Where appellate order was passed by District Magistrate, revision was competent against that order. (c) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--S.277---Revision against order passed in review---Competency---Review being substantive right like right to file appeal, same could not be claimed unless it had been expressly provided for under relevant statute---Review was not continuation of appeal---Appellate order could not be equated with an order passed in review---No right of review having been conferred by statute--­Order passed in review could not be challenged in revisional jurisdiction. (d) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----S.277---Revision---Limitation---Period of thirty days has been provided for filing revision against appellate order by provision of S.277, Cantonments Act, 1924---No powers vested in Revisional Authority to condone delay nor any request was made for condonation of delay---Revision against appellate order filed beyond period of thirty days was thus, patently, barred. (e) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----S.68---Enhancement of annual rental value of property---Provision of S.68, Cantonments Act, 1924, provides for filing of objections to valuation list or assessment or hearing of same by Assessment Committee---No powers, however, were vested in such Assessment Committee to enhance assessment suo motu while hearing objections of assessee. (f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185(3)---High Court declining to exercise discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction---Justification--- Exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction being a discretionary matter, High Court in a fit case could decline to press same into service---Where, however, any act was done through proceedings which were not maintainable, High Court was not justified in declining to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction---High Court's order was thus, set aside and that of lower…
🔒
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