| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 1598 2007 SLD 1598 2007 PLD 271 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.58 of 2000 and Civil Petition No.167/L or 2000 decided on 8-11-2006
RANA RHAGWANDAS, NASIR-UL-MULK AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for appellant (in C.A.No. 58 of 2000). Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for appellant (in C.A.N
Civil Appeal No.58 of 2000 and Civil Petition No.167/L or 2000 decided on 8-11-2006
RANA RHAGWANDAS, NASIR-UL-MULK AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for appellant (in C.A.No. 58 of 2000). Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for appellant (in C.A.N
HABIB ULLAH/
VS
AZMAT ULLAH
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 39---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, Rr.23 & 25---Remand of case---Scope---Suit for cancellation of agreement to sell filed by appellant and suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by respondent were consolidated by Trial Court---Suit filed by appellant was dismissed while that of the respondent was decreed by Trial Court---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction remanded the suit filed by respondent to Trial Court for decision on three issues---Validity---Remand of a case under O.XLI, R.23 C.P.C. could only be ordered, when Court from whose decree an appeal was preferred had disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the decree was reversed---Remand of case, under O.XLI, R.23, C.P.C. was justified, when Court considered re-trial of suit necessary---Appellate Court, under O.XLI, R.25 C.P.C., could retain file on its record and might remit the case to Trial Court for decision of issues not determined and returned the findings to Appellate Court---Remand of case should not be lightly ordered and if evidence on record was sufficient then Appellate Court should have decided the case itself---Courts administering justice had to bear in mind that an order of remand could re-open another chain of litigation, which not only entailed wastage of public time but also delayed disposal of cases, involved unnecessary expense of parties and such vices were seriously detrimental to the justice system---Judgment passed by High Court was set aside and case was remanded to High Court for recording findings on those three issues---Appeal was allowed. Muhammad Dervaish Al-Gilani and 14 others v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1997 SCMR 524 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R.23---Remand order---Appeal against---Post remand decision---Effect---If in pursuance of order of remand, subordinate Court decides the case, appeal against order of remand does not become infructuous, which has to be decided on its own merits---Post remand decision is subject to final decision of pre-remand proceedings. Radha Charam Sardar v. Haribor Mondal and others PLD 1962 Dacca 564 rel.…
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