ORDERSHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C.P No. S- 2092 of
2017
________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________
For
katchaPeshi.
10-11-2017.
Syed Sikandar Ali Shah
Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.UbedullahMalano
Advocate for respondent No.6.
Mr. Khalid Ahmed Korai State Counsel a/w SIPSardar
Ahmed of P.S. PanoAkil, SIP Ghulamhyder on behalf of S.S.P Office Sukkur.
.-.-.-.-
Statement has been filed by
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which are taken on record.
On
the last date of hearing protection was granted to the petitioner to reach to
her lands and official respondents were directed to ensure that no harassment
becaused to her and her family. Counsel for the petitioner seeks disposal of
the instant petition with direction to the area police to ensure thatpetitioner
and her family be given due protection as provided under the law and private
respondents be restrained from taking law into their hands by causing
harassment to the petitioner or her husband and family.
The
petition is accordingly disposed of with direction to area police to provide
all due protection to the petitioner, her husband and family and ensure that no
harassment reaches to them from private respondents.
JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
IInd Civil Appeal No.06 of 2006
________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________
1.
For orders on CMA 982/2017
2.
For orders on CMA 957/2017 (47 r.1)
3.
For orders on CMA 65/2007
4.
For katchaPeshi
5.
For orders on CMA 424/2013
6.
For orders on CMA 66/2007
7.
For orders on CMA 690/2015
10-11-2017.
Mr. Abdul
GhaffarMemon State Counsel.
Mr. Sajjad Muhammad
Zangejo Advocate for the respondent
-------------
Appellants
has preferred the instant Review against this Court’s order dated 16.10.2017
where it was ordered that decreetal amounts totaling Rs. 31,34,329 from the
account of Deputy Commissioner Khairpur
be attached to remain in the account of this Court till the disposal of the instant second
appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his Review Application
referred to Order 27 Rule 8-A CPC which provides that securities mentioned in
rule 5 and 6 of order XLI from the government or a public officer are not
required. Learned counsel immediately thereafter took the Court to Rule 5 and 6
of order XLI which relates to Stay of Proceedings and of Execution in the cases
of Appeals from Original Decrees. Learned counsel contended that since such
payment of security is barred under rule 8-A of order 27 read with rule 5 and 6
of Order XLI, therefore, order of this Court dated 16.10.2017 is devoid of any
legal merit. When the attention of the
counsel was drawn to order XLI which clearly relate solely to Appeals from
Original Decrees as well as is only relevant to sections 96 to 99, 107 and 108
of CPC thus clearly barring applicability in the cases of second appeals,
the learned counsel sought time to
satisfy this Court as to the very applicability of rule 8-A of Order XLI CPC in
the cases of second appeals.
Mr.
Abdul GhaffarMemonState Counsel appeared today and drew Court’s attention to
Order XLII Rule 1 which provides that rules of Order XLI areto comply so far as
may be to appeal from the appellate decrees. He submitted that the said
provision of CPC has filled the gap with regard to applicability of Order XLI
to the cases of second appeal. He in support of his contention placed reliance
on the cases of P L D 1984 Supreme Court
289 where Courts have held that Order XLII are only contains one rule lays down
the procedure of second appeal which by and had to be discovered what is
prescribed in order XLI. He further referred to the case reported as 2000 SCMR
1391 where similar findings are given. He next referred to the case reported as
P L D 2005 SC 311 to support his contention that error apparent on the face of
record is present in the under-review order as the Court has failed to give due
consideration the proceedings of the provisions of Order XLI and XLII read with
Order 27 Rule 8-A given a blanket protection to the government from offering
any security in cases mentioned in rules 5 and 6 of Order XLI. He also placed reliance
on the case of 2014 CLC 725 to show that the Order dated 06.11.2017 failed to
consider fact that the plaintiff has already paid Rs. 9,24,026.90 to the
respondent, therefore, the current liability of the plaintiff has been reduced
to this extent.
While
I see the case is made out by the applicant for the reduction of
plaintiff’s-applicant’s liability reduced from Rs. 31,34,329/- to
Rs.2,210,302.10 .However, the counsel could not satisfy me that the provisions
of Order 27 Rule 8-A applied to the cases of second appeal agitated under Order
XLI. A plain reading of the said Order through its only rule 1 clearly states
that substantive provision could at based be considered to mean that
substantive provision of Order XLI will apply to the cases of second appeal U/O
XLII. However it is very clear that order 27 Rule 8-A only reverse to rule 5
and 6 of Order XLI. By no stretch of imagination one can read text of Order 27
Rule 8-A to include Order XLII and rule 1 which is neither present nor the
intent of the Court. One could argue that for the other matters related to
second appeals provisions of Order XLI as prescribed for the first appeal could
be substantially used thereby sufficient code from trouble of repeating
contents to Rule 1 to rule 38 of Order XLI. In the body of Order XLII.
The
counsel failed to bring any case law whether Courts have held that provisions
of Order 27 rule 8-A also apply to Order XLII Rule 1. I,therefore, partly allow the instant review application
by reducing the letters and numbers Rs. 31,34,329 to Rs.2,210,302.10 and retain
jist of the order that the accounts of Deputy Commissioner be attached to this
extent.
Application
stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Irfan/PA.
ORDERSHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
IInd Civil Appeal No.06 of 2006
________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________
8.
For orders on CMA 982/2017
9.
For orders on CMA 957/2017 (47 r.1)
10. For
orders on CMA 65/2007
11. For
katchaPeshi
12. For
orders on CMA 424/2013
13. For
orders on CMA 66/2007
14. For
orders on CMA 690/2015
10-11-2017.
Mr. Abdul
GhaffarMemon State Counsel.
Mr.Sajjad Muhammad
Zangejo Advocate for the respondent
-------------
Reserved for orders on
CMA 957/2017.
JUDGE
Irfan/PA.
ORDERSHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Civil
Transfer Application No. S-31 of 2017
________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________
1.
For orders on office objection at Flag
‘A’.
2.
For orders on CMA 972/2017 (U/A)
3.
For orders on CMA 973/2017 (Ex)
4.
For katchaPeshi.
10-11-2017.
Mr.Mazher Ali Waggan Advocate for applicant.
.-.-.-.-
1. Counsel for applicant requests that
instant transfer application be converted into revision application under
section 115 CPC. Allowed. Office is directed to convert instant Civil Transfer
Application into Civil Revision Application and given appropriate revision application
number. Counsel to file fresh title page. Counsel
further contends that another Civil Transfer Application bearing No. S-29/2017
may be fixed along with instant matter.Ordered accordingly.
2. Urgency granted.
3. Exemption
granted subject to all just exceptions.
To
come up on 24.11.2017.Provided
however that the pendency of the instant revision application shall not
prejudice or halt the proceedings before trial Court, unless specific orders in
that regard are passed by this Court.
JUDGE
Irfan/PA.
ORDERSHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
R.A No.
3396 of 2016
________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________
ForkatchaPeshi
10-11-2017.
Syed Sardar Ali Shah Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Jamshed A. Faiz Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. Khalid Ahmed Korai State Counsel a/w Inspector
Mukhtiar Ahmed DSP Site Sukkur, SajjadRajper S.H.O P.S. ‘B’ SctionSukkur and
SIP GhulamHyder on behalf of SSP Office Sukkur.
.-.-.-.-
Statements have been filed by
respondents Nos. 4 and 5. No statement is however filed by the newly added
respondent No.6 but counsel is present on its behalf and submits that the
respondent No.6 ensures its fullest support to the initiatives taken by the
police and will accompany them during
all aspects of the investigation with the objective of recovery of the missing
child. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the child’s last known
whereabout has not been considered and despite lapse of two years, CDRs of the
mobile phones have not been obtained. In the given circumstances SSP Sukkur isdirected
to act as a focal person and remain in liaison
in particular with respondent No.6 to investigate whereabouts of the missing
child. Let quarterly report in this regard be submitted by S.S.P Sukkur
detailing progress made. Petitioner is directed to approach SSP Sukkur, who to
use all information available with the petitioner.
Learned
Assistant Attorney General has undertaken also to use all endeavorsto ensure
official respondents take benefit of the synergy with the sole objective of recovering
the child. A copy of this order be sent to S.S.P Sukkur for compliance.
To come up on 27.11.2017.
JUDGE
Irfan/PA.
ORDERSHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
R.A No. 21 of 2008
________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________
For
hearing of CMA 597/2017 (c/a)
10-11-2017.
Abdul Hakeem Phulpoto attorney of respondent present in person.
Mr. Ali GulAbbassi Advocate for contemnors.
.-.-.-.-
Muhammad Moosa attorney of all the
applicant is present and confirms that order of this Court dated 21.5.2010 has
been complied with to the extent that the land in question has been transferred
in the name of Mst. Nazeeran. This fact is acknowledged by Abdul Hakeem
attorney for the respondents as well as Hidayatullah who is son of Mst.
Nazeeran. From VII-B of DehVisrioWahanTapoShahladhaniTaluka and district
Khairpur is also before me which shows that vide entry No.231 dated 15.7.2010Mst.
Nazeeran’sname has been recorded for
land admeasuring 4.30 acres. The only grievance of the respondent who has moved
the instant contempt application is that the possession of the said land is
still enjoyed by the applicant, which assertion is vehemently denied by
applicant Muhammad Moosa who confirms that title as well as possession of the
land has been handed over to Mst. Nazeeran and her representatives.
In the given circumstances Judicial
Magistrate–IKhairpuris directed to personally visit the land in question along
with concerned Mukhtiarkar and survey team and to have the same land demarcated
and ensure its possession handed over to Mst. Nazeeran, her legal heirs or
attorney and file a compliance report along with photographs. If needed police assistance,
S.H.O concerned may also be called by the said Judicial Magistrate to accompany
with him. Compliancereport must be submitted in the next (21) days.
To
come up on 11.12.2017.
JUDGE
Irfan/PA.
Irfan/PA.