Document

1984 SCMR 963
Ahsanul haq kiyani vs Allied bank
So basically, the petitioner was a bank manager who was sued for 2.77 lac which he had
provided guarantee for as a bank manager. idk the commercial details. What happened was that
after setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against him, he did not apply for permission to
contest or defend the suit and when he did last min, the court said there was nothing of
substance in the application and therefore yet again, passed an ex-parte decree.
The petitioner then invoked constitutional jurisdiction of HC. 2 things were argued:
1) the petitioner was not a borrower him-self and no negotiable instrument was used, therefore
the relevant law didn't apply to him.
2) since criminal case was also filed against him, he could not be sued for the recovery of the
money.
The judge, refused to exercise his jurisdiction under article 9, saying the adequate remedies are
available to file appeal to banking courts.
the petitioner said that since he wasn't the borrower the banking court couldn't be applied to
him and he filed to the HC so he could challenge the jurisdiction of banking courts.
The court refused leave to appeal on the ground that, it is essentially a question of fact (whether
the petitioner is borrower or not). This should not be examined in the constitutional jurisdiction
in the HC for the first time and should be tried by the tribunals established for the purpose.
A judicial review would have been more fruitful after the first route had been explored.
Furthermore, the application to defend was time-barred as well as not substantial.
2004 SCMR 1747
Zubair Ahmed vs. Shadis Mirza
Appellent bought rice from the respondent worth 18.5 lac which was paid through a cheque.
when the respondent went to the bank with the cheque the back said the check wasn't valid.
The appellant claimed that the check was in the custody of the bank for it had loaned 23 lac by
pledging rice and the bank together with the respondent had forged the dishonored cheque.
Respondent sued them and the appellant sought leave to appear. The additional district judge
granted conditional leave subject to furnishing bank guarantees equal to the claim. The
appellant failed to fulfil the condition and consequently the court stuck out leave to appear.
Aggrieved appellant preferred an appeal to high court because they should have gotten an
unconditional leave because thier defense was strong enough.
The court said that the judges have the discretion to grant conditional or unconditional appeal
depending on the quality of defense and the material presented before the court. Moreover,
there is no rule that if the defense is plausible the court must grant unconditional leave, which
is granted only if there is sufficient defense.
A conditional leave is not questionable under order XXXVII if it granted after giving opportunity
of hearing of the defense. In this case the opportunity was given, who after failing to show good
defense pleaded for unconditional leave.
No such leave was granted.

PLD 2019 Lahore 111
Waqas Amjad vs. Additional sessions judge.
The applicants purchased land measuring 10 kanals which the respondents dispossessed them
of. A complaint was filed under the dispossession Act which was a special law providing no
remedy of appeal. The council said that in absence of appeal under the act, intra court appeals
were competent.
The judgement essentially interpreted the scope of review and stated that the Supreme court
has unlimited jurisdiction to reopen, revisit or review, and for this purpose examine any
judgment earlier pronounced by this court to set the law correct a cure injustice.
The judge said that though review has a very narrow scope, but it does not mean to abdicate the
power of review in an omnibus fashion.
The intent of the legislature is thus, clear that while incorporating the power of review in the
statute; it is meant that no error in the judgement/order which is so manifest or floating on the
surface should be allowed to continue.
The court ruled that the dismissal of intra court appeal being hit by proviso to section 3 of law
reforms ordinance was unwarranted and thus allowed the review application.
PLD 2005 SC 311
Land acquisition officer vs. Gul Muhammad
Gul Muhammad, the respondent's, land was acquired for construction of New Water Lagoon for
Hyderabad Water Supply Project . He claimed compensation for the land acquired by the
Government at the rate of Rs.40,000 per acre when compensation awarded by the Collector was
at the rate of Rs.13,000 per acre. The court further enhanced the rate of compensation to
Rs.70,000 when the respondents' predecessor had himself demanded compensation at the rate
of Rs.40,000 per acre.
Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the respondents themself
initially asked for 40k, the court doesn't have power to grant more than 40k.
Therefore, enhancement of rate of compensation was made in violation of the principle of law
The court decided that in review application the Judge misconstrued the law and misread the
evidence and did not consider pleas raised before him which amounted to error floating on the
surface of the record, therefore impugned judgement dismissing the review applications cannot
be sustained.

Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1984 SCMR 963

Ahsanul haq kiyani vs Allied bank

Furthermore, the application to defend was time-barred as well as not substantial.

2004 SCMR 1747

Zubair Ahmed vs. Shadis Mirza

No such leave was granted.

Waqas Amjad vs. Additional sessions judge.

PLD 2005 SC 311

Land acquisition officer vs. Gul Muhammad

You might also like