Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1264 2004 SLD 1264 2004 SCMR 1638
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1452/L of 2003, decision dated: 6-07-2004.(On appeal from the judgment dated 1-4-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petition No. 1708 of 1992)
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JJ
Islam Ali Qureshi Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mehfooz-ul-Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos.2-20.

Syed QADIR BAKHSH SHAH and others

VS

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DERA GHAZI KHAN and others

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S. 96---Appeal---Scope---Only those orders and s are, appealable under S.96, C.P.C. where the lower Court happened to exercise original jurisdiction---Question of appeal under S. 96, C.P.C. was referable to the nature of jurisdiction exercised and not to the nature of order passed. JUDGMENT SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.------Syed Qadir Bakhsh Shah and others have challenged the judgment, dated 1-4-2003 whereby their writ petition had been dismissed. 2. The petitioners filed a declaratory suit claiming lawful title and possession in the suit property and also that the decrees, dated 11-7- 964 of the Civil Judge and 8-9-1965 of the District Judge are not binding upon them and further that the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 17-1-1987 in Civil Appeal No.128 of 1979 is ineffective against their rights and still further that the mutations attested pursuant to the aforesaid judgment are liable to be reviewed and corrected. 3. Such suit was contested through application seeking rejection of plaint. The trial Court on 4-5-1989 refused such rejection of plaint but the same was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal on 14-12-1991. The writ petition filed by the petitioners failed and hence this petition. 4. The learned High Court was of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge rejecting the plaint was a decree in terms of section 2(2) of the C.P.C. and hence appealable under section 96, C.P.C. The request of the learned counsel that, if so, petition before the High Court may be treated as a revision, was turned down on the ground that even if so treated, it would be hopelessly time barred, for, the copy of the judgment having supplied on 23-12-1991, the Constitutional petition was filed on 30-5-1992. 5. We are of the view that the very idea that the order of learned District Judge was appealable under section 96, C.P.C is not in accordance with law. Only those orders and judgments are appealable under section 96,…
🔒
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