Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 1666 2009 SLD 1666 2009 SCMR 574
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.771-K of 2000, decision dated: 19-02-2009
SABIHUDDIN AHMAD AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, 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

KATHIAWAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

VS

MACCA MASJID TRUST and others

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 92,O.XXIX,R.1

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S. 92 & O. XXIX, R.1---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Private trust---Permission of Advocate-General---Principles---Signing of pleadings---New plea, raising of---Administration of justice---Rules of procedure---Scope---Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was reversed by Lower Appellate Court solely on the ground that the suit had been filed in violation of S.92 C.P.C.---Validity---Direction of Advocate General was not required in private disputes where Trust was alleged to have been established unlawfully for the purpose of usurping a particular property belonging to and/or under the control of any other person or corporate entity---Marked difference was between prayers in the suit filed by appellant and provisions of S.92 C.P.C. which was designed for protection of and administration of trusts created for public purpose and required consent of Advocate General before filing suit to obtain decrees relating to eight kinds of reliefs mentioned therein, in which public at large would be interested---No specific objection having been taken by respondent regarding competency of person who signed and verified plaint to do so either in written statement or in evidence produced before Trial Court, such objection could not be taken at appellate stage---Had such objection been taken, it would have been rectified by appellant by producing requisite authority to sign and verify the plaint---Absence to have authority to sign pleadings was mere an irregularity which could be set at right and could not be made basis of non-suiting a litigant---Matter should be decided on merits and not dismissed on technicalities, which even otherwise could not be substantiated---Rules of procedure were framed to foster the cause of justice and not to hamper it unless any party was prejudiced by any violation of the same---Such rules should not stand in the way of dispensation of justice---Judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and maintained by High Court in revisional jurisdiction was set aside by Supreme Court and case was remanded to Lower Appellate Court for decision afresh on merits---Appeal was allowed. JUDGMENT SARMAD…
🔒
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