Find a Lawyer

MST. QAISRA BANO versus SHAIKH SHAHID ABBAS

ection Section 372 - Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Articles 114 and 151 Administrative Case Order Review of High Court's Inherent Powers Court Act Court - The High Court has been directed to submit the Succession Miscellaneous Request (SMA) to the administrative case. The request to be changed but later denied due to lack of proper legal inheritance was rejected - once the court had officially ordered the proceedings to be transferred from the SMA to the administrative case, the direction in the previous proceedings had its costs. And will lose weight and proceed as per the procedure, followed by (modified) proceedings - administration The case cannot be dismissed simply because there may be other legal heirs, the parties cannot be made such that the inquiry in this regard can be arranged in the jurisdiction of the administrative suit. An inadvertent error of the court that would result in no prejudice should be directed to the change of the SMA in the administrative suit in the field and the time of the subsequent order ie the dismissal of the SMA if identified. In the event that such an order cannot be passed, even the inadvertent error of the court, Section 114, can always be corrected / verified using the powers provided by CPC. Jurisdiction within the meaning of section 151, CPC, which was intended to bring about the termination of justice or the Taineam ramor,];

P L D 2017 Sindh 486 

Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J

Mst. QAISRA BANO—Petitioner/Applicant

versus

Shaikh SHAHID ABBAS and others—Deceased.

S.M.A. No. Nil of 2013, decided on 29th September, 2016.

Sucession Act (XXXIX of 1925)—

—S. 372—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 114 & 151--Administrative suit—Review of order—Inherent powers of High Court—Act of Court—High Court directed to convert Succession Miscellaneous Application (SMA) into administrative suit but later on said application was dismissed for not impleading proper legal heirs— Validity—Once the Court competently ordered conversion of proceedings from SMA to administrative suit, then direction in fÓrm;er proceedings would lose its value and weight and things were to proceed as per procedure, provided for later (converted) proceedings—Suit for administration could not be dismissed simply for the reason that there could also be some other legal heirs, not made party in suit—Inquiry in such regard could competently be done within the scope of administrative suit—Such was an inadvertent mistake of Court which should not result in prejudicing anybody—Order converting SMA into administrative suit held the field and at the time of subsequent order i.e. dismissal of SMA if it would have been pointed out so that such subsequent order could not have passed—Bona fide inadvertent mistake even of Court could always be corrected/ratified by exercising powers provided by S.114, C.P.C, coupled with inherent jurisdiction within the meaning of S. 151, C.P.C., which was meant for the ends of justice or taaianuaam ramiwar, ];

to prevent abuse of the process of Court—Administrative suit was restored in circumstances, [p. 488] A

Ms. Noor Naz Agha for Petitioner.

property advocate from Gharo lawyer