Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑18 of 1965, decided on 9th March 1965.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi, dated the 11th December 1964, in Second Appeal No. 238 of 1963).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Art. 58 Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑Petitions entertained only against ",final" judgments or orders of High Court‑Leave granted, after hearing counsel, against order of Single Judge of High Court which could be challenged in Letters Patent appeal after obtaining certificate from such Judge‑Fact of such appeal being available not brought to notice of Supreme Court at time of hearing‑Order granting leave allowed to stand, Supreme Court making it clear at same time that case was not to be regarded as a precedent.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Art. 58‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑Granted where questions involved were whether a letter written by counsel of judgment‑debtor was to be construed (i) as having been written on behalf of judgment‑debtor, and (ii) as containing acknowledgment of liability, sufficient to extend limitation‑[Both questions complex‑High Court's judgment one of reversal of that of Court below]‑[Execution of decree for Rs.20,000.]
Ihsanul Hag Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Hamid Hussain Advocate, Supreme Court on record‑Absent) instructed by S. M. Hanif Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 9th March 1965.
After hearing Mr. Ehsan‑ul‑Huq in support of the petition, we announced grant of leave. It was not brought to our notice at the time that the judgment in question being one delivered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in second appeal, a further appeal within the High Court was competent, under the Letters Patent, if a certificate had been obtained from the learned Single Judge. The practice of this Court is to entertain petitions for special leave only against final judgments and orders of the High Court, that is such as are delivered or made in a case seeking the final remedy available in that Court. In view of the fact that counsel has been heard, and an order granting leave has been announced, we treat this as a special case, and proceed to state briefly the grounds to leave. But we wish to make it clear that the case is not to bed regarded as a precedent.
An important question appears in this case, which arises in relation to execution proceedings under a decree for a large sum, viz. Rs. 20,000 and that is, whether a letter written by a Mr. Abdul Qadir Baig, an Advocate, who had acted in that capacity for the judgment‑debtor in the execution proceedings, was to be construed (a) as having been written on behalf of the judgment‑debtor and (b) as containing an acknowledgment of liability, sufficient to extend limitation. Both questions are not free from complexity, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, being one of reversal of the judgment of the Court below, we consider it appropriate that the case should be re‑considered, in regard to these two questions.
We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security Rs. 500.
A. H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer