| Case ID |
2b571ab8-d31e-4bd3-9e7a-a3277fa8c479 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No.5851 of 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 13, 2000 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court allowed the amendment of the application filed by the respondent Mst. Farkhanda Khanum under Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code, which sought permission to sue as a pauper for recovering a substantial amount calculated as the price of her dowry articles from her former husband. The court emphasized that the amendment did not change the nature of the dispute and noted that there was existing evidence regarding the bank accounts in question. The court ruled that the learned Additional District Judge had erred in dismissing the objection concerning pecuniary jurisdiction, asserting that the question of jurisdiction should be considered only after the application was converted into a suit. Ultimately, the order of the learned Additional District Judge was set aside, allowing the petitioner to amend her application and proceed with her case. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the application for permission to sue as a pauper under the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner, Mst. Farkhanda Khanum, sought to recover Rs. 21,45,605 from her former husband, Moeen Nawaz Khan, as the price of her dowry articles. The Lahore High Court addressed the procedural nuances of pauper suits, emphasizing the protective intent of Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code, which aims to safeguard the rights of individuals unable to pay court fees. The court highlighted the importance of allowing amendments to applications when they do not alter the core dispute. This case underscores the significance of proper jurisdiction and the procedural requirements necessary for pauper applications. The ruling reinforces the principle that the court must consider existing evidence and the nature of the claims made in such applications. Furthermore, the court's decision to allow the amendment reflects a commitment to ensuring justice, particularly in cases involving vulnerable parties. The case is pivotal for understanding the procedural aspects of pauper suits and the importance of jurisdiction in civil proceedings. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Muhammad Ali Gilani for Petitioner,
Riaz Muhammad Khan for Respondent No. 2
|
| Petitioners |
MOEEN NAWAZ KHAN
|
| Respondents |
,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL
|
| Citations |
2000 SLD 1998,
2000 CLC 1442
|
| Other Citations |
Abdur Rauf v. Khalid PLD 1968 Lah. 423,
Sardar Hari Chand v. Durga Devi AIR 1941 Lah. 128,
Firm Bhajan Ram Gil Raj Mal v. Mst. Narain Devi AIR 1926 Lah. 642,
Hafi Karishna Datta v. K.R. Khosfa AIR 1934 Lah. 231,
Sadaqat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Sajjat Ali Khan AIR 1929 Lah. 257,
Venkatakrisnaya v. Sayamma AIR 1926 Mad. 958,
Bihari Sahu v. Sudama Kuer AIR 1938 Pat. 209,
Ma Ma Gale v. Ma Mi. AIR 1931 Rang. 318,
Durga Prasad v. Gur Dularey AIR 1938 Oudh 146,
Bai Chandan v. Chhotalal Jekisond AIR 1932 Bom. 584,
Ram Dulari v. Alian Bibi AIR 1942 Oudh 240,
Ramzan Ali v. Satul Bibi AIR 1948 All. 244,
B.B. and C.I. Ry. Co. v. Nitthu AIR 1931 All. 659,
Sundar Das v. Mst. Narain Devi 87 PR 1912,
Maratab Ali v. Madan Lal AIR 1934 Lah. 295
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
Order XXXIII, Rr.1, 2, 8 & 9,
Order XXXIII, Rr.2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 5.115,
Section 115,
Section 11 & Order XXXIII, Rr.1, 2, 3
|