| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 334 2010 SLD 334 2010 CLC 14 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd August, 2009
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd August, 2009
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ABDULLAH and 11 others--Applicants
VS
MUHAMMAD HAROON and 8 others
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----O. XLI, Rr.30 & 31---Judgment in appeal---Points in controversy requiring determination not formulated in particular form, but appellant Court addressed to such points and recorded findings thereon---Validity---Substantial justice had been done in such case. Hafiz Ali Ahmed through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Abad and others PLD 1999 Kar. 354 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Suit for declaration to protect State land from its fraudulent transfer in favour of defendant---Maintainability---Plaintiff by raising such plea had admitted that he had no right or title in suit-land---No duty was cast upon plaintiff to take pain of filing such suit---Question of fraud was brought to notice of relevant authorities, which had given decision in favour of defendant---Only Government could have challenged such decision---No grievance was caused to plaintiff by such decision---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Hafiz Ali Ahmed v. Muhammad Asad PLD 1999 Kar. 354 and S. Shahid Ahmed Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore 1978 SCMR 367 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Impugned decision being erroneous in law and/or fact---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope stated. Provisions of section 115, C.P.C., envisage interference by High Court only on account of jurisdiction alone i.e. if a Court subordinate to High Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it or has not exercised such jurisdiction so vested in it. When a Court has jurisdiction to decide a question, it has jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly both in fact and law. The mere fact that its decision is erroneous in law does not amount to illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. For an applicant to succeed under section 115, C.P.C., he has to show that there is some material defect of procedure or disregard of some rule of law in the manner of reaching that wrong decision. In other words, there must be some distinction between jurisdiction to try and determine a matter and erroneous action of Court in exercise of such jurisdiction. Erroneous conclusions of law or fact can be corrected in appeals and not by…
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