|
| O.
XLI, R. 31---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8---Azad Jammu and
Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42---Suit for
possession---Contents of judgment---Scope---Suit was dismissed by Trial
Court and Appellate Court below, but on second appeal ,
High Court remanded case to Appellate Court for decision
afresh---Validity---Provisions of R.31 of O.XLI, C.P.C., relating to
contents of judgment of Appellate Court, were mandatory---First
Appellate Court was also a court of facts, and it was enjoined upon the
said court to decide each and every issue after discussing the
evidence---If decision of appeal
was possible after recording the finding on one or more issues, then it
was not necessary to record finding of all the issues---In the present
case Appellate Court below had not recorded findings issue-wise, but
only resolved the question of limitation and question as to whether suit
was hit by O.II, R.2, C.P.C., was not resolved---No issue was framed
whether the suit was hit by O.II, R.2, C.P.C.---Appellate Court below
delivered the judgment in a telegraphic manner without discussing the
facts or evidence on record---Appellate Court was obliged to record
findings on each and every issue when the decision on the basis of
findings on one issue was not possible---Two issues were crucial in the
suit and without deciding said issues, appeal
could not be decided---High Court, in circumstances, had correctly
remanded the case to Appellate Court below for resolving
of issues.
|
|
Speedy justice
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013%5C03%5C09%5Cstory_9-3-2013_pg3_7
09.03.2013
Daily Times
Sir: After the lower courts were instructed by the honourable chief justice (CJ) to dispose of long pending cases, it became heartening to note that old cases were transferred to another court of the same level for speedy disposal of the same. However, It was shocking to note, at least in one civil case, that a learned judge of the lower court, and possessing the same jurisdictional powers of that judicial forum, passed an order stating that the order passed earlier was null and void in the eyes of law — not his exact words but a gist of them. The question that comes to my mind is: does the transfer of a case or a judge in the same jurisdictional forum empower the new judge or court to override and nullify the orders passed by the preceding judge in the same forum and in the same matter? It does not appeal to my common sense that the negation of one’s colleague judge’s orders is lawful or in the interest of justice, the matter clearly falling in the jurisdictional ambit of the higher court. Such incidences, if allowed to occur, will only open the door for more delays and circuitous litigation because the affected litigant will definitely opt for a revision with the district judge, after which there could be apparent chances that the unlawful order will be reversed or stuck down. It would not be out of place to state that such arbitrary and careless use of speed in deciding judicial matters will only deny justice to litigants and will give results to the concept of ‘haste makes waste’. It may be desired of the honourable Supreme Court (SC) to see that the adjudicating courts do not use the powers or jurisdiction of the appellate courts or tend to act as summary courts while speedily deciding matters that, as a rule, ought to be decided on merit only.
MAZHAR BUTT
Karachi