Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1467 1994 SLD 1467 1994 PLD 170
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 14 of 1989, decided on 1st December, 1993. DATE of hearing: 27th November, 1993
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
Malik Muhammad Jaffar for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 8. Maulvi AnwarulHaq for
Respondent No. 3

NOOR MUHAMMAD

VS

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHAKWAL and 7 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Interpretation of statutes--­ ----Generally all laws apply prospectively, subject, however, to the exception that laws affecting procedure only are presumed to be retrospective---Matters relating to remedy and jurisdiction are usually considered to be procedural in character for they do not affect the rights of parties---However, if retrospective operation of even a procedural statute, causes inconvenience or injustice the Courts would not favour an interpretation giving retrospective effect to the stature. Ch. Jalal Din v. Mst. Asghari Begum and others 1984 SCMR 586 and Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--­ ----S. 12(2)---Remedy provided by S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, whether available in respect of decrees passed by Courts prior to enactment of S.12(2), C.P.C: Prior to enactment of S.12(2), C.P.C., any decree could be challenged on ground of fraud and lack of jurisdiction by filing a separate suit which was a cumbersome and time consuming procedure---Legislature in order to provide a more efficacious and speedy remedy enacted S.12(2), C.P.C. which provided for application for setting aside decree before the same Court instead of filing a separate suit which was barred---Such provision being statutory and beneficial in character was intended to shorten litigation by providing a remedy which was more expedient than that of filing suit and ii did not take away any of the vested rights of parties but had the effect of substituting one remedy for another---Decree against petitioner having been passed on 6-11-1976 i.e. before promulgation of S.12(2), C.P.C. he challenged that decree by filing a suit---Petitioner, however, withdrew that suit and brought a fresh suit on 6th July, 1980 which was again withdrawn on 25th April, 1982 stating that he would avail of the remedy provided by S.12(2), C.P.C.--Application under 5.12(2), C.P.C. was thus, competent in respect of decree passed by Court prior to promulgation of 5.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Government of Sindh and another v. Ch. Fazal Muhammad and another PLD 1991 SC 197; Abdur Rauf and others v. Abdur Rahim Khan PLD 1982 Pesh. 172; Fateh…
🔒
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