Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

MUHAMMAD NAZEER versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE


Use of the order to exclude a review application by the court on the wrong view of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Article 199 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Constitutional Jurisdiction, 5 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). Unlawful On the one hand, the High Court in exercising constitutional jurisdiction ordered the court below to consider the review petition pending fresh settlement in accordance with the law.
1986 C L C 2795

[Lahore

Before Muhammad Afzal Lone, J

MUHAMMAD NAZEER and others--Petitioners

versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others--Respondents

Writ Petition No. 3892 of 1985, decided on 12th March, 1986.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V opt 1908)--

---S. 115--'Case decided'--Connotation of--Revisional jurisdiction--Order of Trial Court dismissing application for amendment of plaint being a case decided; such order, held, was open to interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Bashir Ahmad v. Qaiser Ali Khan P L D 1973 S C 507 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-

---Art. 199--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Order dismissing revision petition by Court below on erroneous view of scope of 5.115 of Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), being illegal was set aside, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by High Court with direction to Court below that revision petition should be treated as pending for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Malik Muhammad Ashbab for Petitioners.

Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th March, 1986.

JUDGMENT

The learned Civil Judge's order, dated 19-3-1984 was called in question by the petitioners through a revision which was not entertained by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the order did not amount to a case decided within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C.

2. A reference to Bashir Ahmad v. Qaiser Ali Khan P L D 1973 SC 507 will provide that such an order can be subjected to revisional jurisdiction. It being so, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents did not have much in defending the impugned orders.

3. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted, impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Consequently the petitioner's revision shall be treated as pending and to be disposed of afresh in accordance with law, within a period of two months. The parties are left to bear their own costs and are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 24-3-1986.

H.B.T. ----- Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
divorce advocates from Mirpur Mathelo lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.