| Case ID |
091abf98-8950-4d6d-9893-f589fd233c19 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. No. 6472 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
May 10, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
This constitutional petition is accepted. The order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the learned revisional Court is found to be illegal and without lawful authority, and is set-aside. The application filed by the respondents is deemed to be dismissed. The High Court observed that the principle of Res Judicata was applicable to miscellaneous applications filed during the pendency of the suit. The earlier order passed in the revision petition, which disallowed the same witness from being produced in evidence, had attained finality and was not challenged further. Therefore, the learned revisional Court's decision to allow the subsequent application for the same relief was not valid, as it did not comply with the legal principles governing revisional jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that merely mentioning a wrong provision of law or making a wrong headnote in an application does not change its substance and complexion. The need for consistency and adherence to legal principles was underscored, leading to the acceptance of the petition and dismissal of the respondents' application. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Lahore High Court dealt with a constitutional petition challenging the order passed in civil revision regarding the production of additional evidence in a suit for specific performance. The core issue revolved around the application of the doctrine of Res Judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided upon. The Court underscored that the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is primarily meant for correcting jurisdictional defects and material illegalities. The petitioners argued that the revisional court had committed an error by allowing a subsequent application for additional evidence, which was essentially identical to a previously dismissed application. The High Court ruled that the revisional order was illegal as it ignored the finality of the earlier decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the significance of maintaining consistency in legal proceedings. It serves as a critical reminder of the principles governing civil procedure and the importance of finality in judicial decisions. This case is significant for legal practitioners and scholars interested in civil procedure and the application of the law in judicial reviews. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD ALI, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Tajammal Hussain Bukhari for Petitioner,
Syed Kabeer Ahmad,
Zafar Iqbal Batalwi for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
|
| Respondents |
3 OTHERS,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 1468,
2018 YLR 1234
|
| Other Citations |
Sohail Farooq v. Farzana Rafique and others 2017 YLR 1300,
Mst. Iqbal Begum through her Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Akbar and 5 others 1992 CLC 232,
Messrs New Rahat Engineering Works through Proprietor and 4 others v. National Bank of Pakistan and another 2003 CLD 282,
Kharati and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others 1989 CLC 894,
Muhammad Anwar v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others PLD 2013 SC 255
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
115,
11,
2,
12
|