Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 678 1994 SLD 678 1994 SCMR 818
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 151 and 152 of 1992, decision dated: 29-01-1994
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, 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

Mst. SHUMAL BEGUM

Mst. GULZAR BEGUM and 3 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115--.-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted to Consider as to whether the High Court in its limited jurisdiction should have interfered, on the question of fact, with the appellate . (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--Ss. 214 & 215---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art., 185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether an attorney could have exercised the right and power of the owner to make a mental decision for purpose of making a gift as against form of alienations like sale without the donor himself having taken a mental conscious decision of making a gift, particularly, on the basis of alleged power of attorney which allegedly gave power to alienate only through a general power of attorney and whether law laid down by Supreme Court regarding transfers by attorneys in favour of next of kin without the specific approval from the principal had been followed in the case. Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan through Legal Heirs PLD 1985 SC 341 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court when attracted---High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot disturb the finding of fact arrived at by lower Court in proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Court and upon consideration of the relevant evidence on record---Where findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court were reversed by the High Court on re-appraisal of the evidence by substituting its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court without referring to any defect in the process of reasoning adopted by the First Appellate Court, Supreme Court held that that was not permissible within the scope of the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court. The revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. exercised by the High Court is attracted only in cases where the lower Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or it has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or while exercising jurisdiction the Courts below have acted illegally or with material irregularity. It is, therefore, quite clear…
🔒
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