Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1498 2006 SLD 1498 2006 PLD 214
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.725-K of 2005, decision dated: 23rd November, 2005. (On appeal from the judgment dated 27-4-2005 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.P. No.S-241/2004).
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, C.J., AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, J
Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record. Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record No. 1. Nemo. Nos.2 and 3.

Mst. MOBIN FATIMA

VS

MUHAMMAD YAMIN and 2 others Mst. MOBIN FATIMA vs MUHAMMAD YAMIN and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Limitation---Condonation of delay---No notice for date of hearing---Petition for leave to appeal was filed with a delay of 116 days, against passed by High Court---Plea raised by petitioner was that High Court reserved its without giving any date for its announcement---Validity---Office of High Court reported that matter was never notified, no notice was issued to the parties/counsel for announcement of ---Concerned Branch of High Court did not receive any intimation from the concerned Court for such act---.Sufficient material was available on record to show that sufficient material/justifiable grounds existed for condonation of delay---Delay was condoned. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Error of law---Conclusion drawn by Courts below---High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, can interfere if wrong or illegal conclusions are drawn by the Courts below, which are not based on facts found because each of such acts amounts to an error of law---Such error of law can always be corrected by High Court. (c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Ejectment of tenant---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Substitution of findings of fact---Rent Controller dismissed ejectment application but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed eviction order---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction reappraised the evidence, set aside the passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored the order of Rent Controller---Plea raised by landlady was that High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction could not act as Court of appeal---Validity---Interference was made by High Court merely because a different conclusion was possible from the facts found, which did not amount to error of law---Lower Appellate Court discussed entire evidence and its did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence---Findings of Lower Appellate Court were cogent and consistent with the evidence…
🔒
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