PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

ABDUL RAZIQ vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ S — 2022 CLC 1048 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2022 CLC 1048 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
CLC
Parties
ABDUL RAZIQ vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 153---P

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

ABDUL RAZIQ VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ S.153---Pre-emption---Talb-i-Muwathibat---Date, time and place, mentioning of---Application of petitioner/pre-emptor was allowed by Trial Court for correction of mistake---Petitioner prayed that in plaint he had inadvertently mentioned "AM", instead of "PM" due to accidental slip/omission---District Court accepted (ex-parte) revision petition of the respondent/defendant---Petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed---Petitioner contended that correction would not cause prejudice to respondents; that contents of plaint supported petitioner's version regarding error being accidental; that Trial Court's order was not a "case decided"---Held, that if an interim order was a final order relating to a part of proceedings/issue and having effect on merits of the case, such an order could be corrected in revisional jurisdiction---Court had general power to amend any defect/error in any proceedings in a suit at any time to determine real question/issue---Correction of error/mistake would depend on nature of mistake/error as per the facts of each case---Mentioning of particulars as to date, time and place of making talb of pre-emption was essential for substantiating such right and failure would be fatal and pre-emptor would face the consequence of omission---Such omission if allowed to be corrected/amended it would change the nature/complexion of the suit---Petitioner did not choose to seek correction until the said facts was not specifically denied by the respondents in the written statements, and that too for correction of time as "12 PM" instead of "12:30 AM" with an object to withdraw the admission made in the plaint and wipe out the defence taken by the respondent, hence not with bona fide intention---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English