| Case ID |
2e6a8e24-623b-4e96-8418-bad9ff7f0760 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Revision Applications Nos. 103 of 1992 and 238 of |
| Decision Date |
Dec 10, 1995 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed both Revision Applications Nos. 103 of 1992 and 238 of 1993 as infructuous and incompetent due to the finality of the lower court's orders and changed circumstances affecting the merits of the case. The Court concluded that the lower courts did not commit any error of jurisdiction warranting an interference in their decisions, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction is purely discretionary. Consequently, both revision applications were dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming the finality and authority of the lower courts' judgments. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case adjudicated by the Sindh High Court on December 10, 1995, involving Revision Applications Nos. 103 of 1992 and 238 of 1993, the Court meticulously analyzed the legal intricacies surrounding property auction disputes and the applicability of various legal provisions. The petitioner, MST. SAEEDA KHATOON, challenged the dismissal of her suit concerning the auction of House No. R-450, Block-9, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi, mortgaged to the House Building Finance Corporation. The Court delved into critical sections of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), and Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), emphasizing the significance of final judgments and the impermissibility of revising interim orders that have merged into final decisions.
Key legal arguments centered on the dismissal of MST. Abrar Jehan Begum's suit and the subsequent irrelevance of revision applications due to changed circumstances. The Court upheld the principle that revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised frivolously, maintaining the integrity of lower court decisions unless clear jurisdictional errors are evident. The judgment referenced pivotal cases like Province of East Pakistan v. Nawab Hassan Askary and Imtiaz Ahmed v. Ghulam Ali to substantiate the stance against reopening finalized cases based on procedural technicalities absent substantial grounds.
This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to finality in legal proceedings, preventing the multiplicity of litigation and ensuring judicial efficiency. The decision serves as a precedent for handling property disputes, emphasizing that once a suit is decreed, especially with merged interim orders, revisional avenues become untenable unless exceptional jurisdictional errors are proven. Legal professionals and stakeholders in property law can derive insights on the boundaries of revisional jurisdiction and the critical evaluation of claims based on changed circumstances. Trending legal keywords such as 'Sindh High Court verdict,' 'property auction dispute resolution,' 'Civil Procedure Code application,' and 'judicial discretion in revision applications' make this case a pivotal reference point for understanding appellate jurisprudence in Pakistan's legal landscape. The Court's ruling reinforces the balance between procedural adherence and substantive justice, ensuring that legal remedies are both fair and final, thereby contributing significantly to the jurisprudential framework governing property and civil law matters. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
House Building Finance Corporation,
City Deputy Collector, Karachi,
Mst. Abrar Jehan Begum,
1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi,
Additional District Judge, Karachi,
1st Additional District Judge, Karachi Central
|
| Judges |
RANA BHAGWAN DAS
|
| Lawyers |
S. Ansar Hussain,
Muhammad Aslam Butt,
Aijaz Ahmed Shaikh,
Nemo
|
| Petitioners |
MST. SAEEDA KHATOON
|
| Respondents |
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
1998 SLD 1231 = 1998 PLD 99
|
| Other Citations |
Province of East Pakistan v. Nawab Hassan Askary PLD 1971 SC 82,
Imtiaz Ahmed v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
|
| Sections |
VII, R.11,
S.115,
S.2(2),
S.60,
S.42
|