Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Civil Petitions Nos. K‑145 and 146 of 1984, decided on 19th November, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 22‑12‑1983 passed in Second Appeals Nos. 321 and 364 of 1966).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951), S. 3(a)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether interference by High Court in a Second appeal on questions regarding appreciation of evidence was justified; and whether interpretation placed by High Court on provisions of S. 3 of Act (II of 1951) and rules made there under was also correct.
Abdul Hafeez Memon, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Ali Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate‑General, Sind with Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 19th November, 1984.
‑These two petitions arise out of two suits Nos. 275 of 1959 and 276 of 1949 filed by Naraindas petitioner in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑145 of 1984 and his wife Nirmala Bai and his children petitioners in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑146 of 1984 who sought declaration that they are citizens of Pakistan and respondents were restrained from removing them from the territories of Pakistan. The trial Court dismissed the suits, but on appeal the District Judge, Tharparkar reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suits in favour of plaintiffs. Respondents then challenged the judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court in Second Appeals before Sind High Court and these succeeded with the result that the judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court were set aside and those passed by the trial Court were upheld. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners now seek leave to appeal.
2. Admittedly Naraindas petitioner was born in village Perumal Taluka and District Sanghar in 1927, and his wife and children were also born in Pakistan. All these persons were granted Pakistani domicile certificates. Naraindas petitioner had a Pakistani Passport but when he applied for its renewal in August, 1956 his request was refused. On the facts and circumstances proved in the case learned District Judge held that petitioners were citizens of Pakistan by virtue of section 3 (a) of Pakistan Citizenship Act. In this connection this is what he observed in the judgment:‑
"It is admitted that the appellant was born in village Perumal Taluka and District Sanghar (in the territory not including in Pakistan) and it is admitted that after 14th August, 1947 the appellants were not permanently residing in any other country outside Pakistan, as such they shall be deemed to be the Citizens of Pakistan. by virtue of section 3 (a) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act which reads as follows:‑
(3) At the commencement of this Act every person shall be deemed to be a citizen of Pakistan
(a) who or any of whose parents or grand‑parents was born in the territory not included in Pakistan and who after the fourteen day of August, 1947, has not been permanently resident in any country outside Pakistan.
Thus, it is clearly admitted that the appellants were citizens of Pakistan on 13‑4‑1951 when the above Act was passed. It is admitted that the appellants were citizens of Pakistan by operation of provisions of section 16 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951. Thus, the appellants having been Citizens of Pakistan by virtue of section 3 of the Act."
3. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Memon, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that interference by the High Court in a Second Appeal on questions regarding appreciation of evidence was not justified. He further submits that the interpretation placed by the High Court on the provisions of section 3 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act and rules made there under is also not correct.
4. The points raised by the learned counsel in support of the petitions deserve consideration. We, therefore, grant leave in both these petitions. Security Rs.2,500 in each case.
5. The interim order of this Court, dated 22‑3‑1984 directing that the petitioners. shall not extended from Pakistan shall continue until the appeals are decided.
6. Appeal shall be heard on the present record at an early date. It is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
M. I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer