Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 820 1997 SLD 820 1997 CLC 1555
Lahore High Court
writ Petition No. 5247-M of 1996, heard on 17-03-1997
RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J
Mian Shamsul Haq Ansari for Petitioner. Ch. Imdad Ali Khan for
Respondents

KAMALUDDIN-

VS

MUHAMMAD SHAM and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-------Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115---Interim order--­Constitutional jurisdiction---Competency to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction against interim order passed in pending suit proceedings---Pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge to hear and decide revision petition---Value of suit as assessed by plaintiff was Rs.5,000---Competency of District Judge to hear and decide revisional petition---District Judge would have revisional jurisdiction in all cases where value of subject-matter of suit was up to Rs.2.00,000---Suit having been valued at Rs.5,000, District Judge would have jurisdiction to hear and decide revision petition arising out of such suit---Constitutional petition arising out of interim order was not competent. Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 131 rel. Attiqullah v. Kafayatullah 1981 SCMR 162; Mehr Din and 2 others v. Siraj Din and 2 others PLD 1980 BJ 45; Salhoon v. Mst. Jawai and another 1983 CLC 1436; Sher Zaman Khan v. Noor Zaman Khan and another PLD 1977 Lah. 672; Ali Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1996 SC 292; Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others PLD 1985 SC 131; Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail PLD 1981 SC 246 and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v-. Sultan and others PLD 1981 SC 522 ref. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 22---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.33---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Parties had appointed specified person as arbitrator to give award on disputes of parties after making inquiry--­Such person made a statement in the Court on basis of which Court passed the impugned order---Such person had not made such statement purely on basis of his knowledge of facts of case; the moment he entered upon inquiry, so authorized under the arbitration agreement, he could not be termed as "referee"---Person so appointed, for all intents and purposes was "arbitrator" and not "referee" ---District J_udge__ had rightly set aside order based upon statement of such person and- had competently directed Court below to decide the same on merits. Sher Zaman Khan v. Noor Zaman Khan and another…
🔒
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