Mst. SANA ASLAM vs ALI IMRAN S — 2024 CLC 550 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Mst. SANA ASLAM VS ALI IMRAN S.5, Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.114 & O.XLVII, R. 1---Review---Scope---In family matter, the Court vide consolidated judgment upheld the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and consequently dismissed writ petitions---Applicant being aggrieved had filed review application through her attorney---Validity---Though the Attorney of the applicant had no right of audience or to plead before High Court, however, High Court had carefully examined the contents of the review application---On merits it had been noted that High Court vide consolidated judgment dated 08.03.2022 held that claim of the applicant in the suit for recovery of dowry articles was that dowry articles were in the custody of the respondents---In written statement, the respondents claimed that as a result of settlement between the parties through agreement dated 11.06.2017, dowry articles were returned---Respondents also produced an agreement dated 11.06.2017---Applicant during cross-examination denied the said agreement, however, in her separate suit for dissolution of marriage, she herself produced agreement dated 11.06.2017 as additional evidence during the appeal to claim that no dower was paid at the time of marriage---In said document, it was also recorded that dowry articles were already received back and there was nothing due between the parties in that regard---Mere fact that the agreement dated 11.06.2017 was not the certified copy but copy of a document would not change the fate of the case, as in said document, it was recorded that dowry articles were received back with no claim outstanding in that regard---No doubt the agreement dated 11.06.2017, produced by applicant was not signed by her but under the principle of estoppel when she herself produced said agreement in support of her claim for dower, the other part of the same agreement could not be denied by her, which supported claim of respondent in agreement dated 11.06.2017, according to which dowry articles were returned and nothing was due between the parties in that behalf---Thus, there was no error apparent on the face of record to review the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2022---Review application being meritless was dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 550 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. SANA ASLAM VS ALI IMRAN O.III, Rr.1, 2 & 4---Recognized agents---Right to audience---Scope---According to O.III, R.1, C.P.C., a recognized agent could appear, file applications or act in or to any Court on behalf of any party---Rule 2 of O.III C.P.C. referred to class of persons, who could be treated as recognized agents of parties, which included person holding power of attorney authorizing him to make and do such appearance, application and act on behalf of the parties---Words "appearance", "application" and "act" used in Rr.1 & 2 of O. III, C.P.C. are not defined therein---However, applying ordinary meaning to those words, the word "appear" means, to be present and to represent the party at various stages of litigation---Words "application" or "act" means necessary steps, which could be taken on behalf of the parties in the Court or in the offices of the Court in the course of litigation---However, the words "appearance", "application" and "act" under Rr. 1 & 2 do not include pleadings---Thus, the recognize agent is entitled to appear, file application and act for party but he is not entitled to plead in Court---Such right is only available to pleader under O. III, R. 4, C.P.C.---When right of pleading is not available to a recognized agent, it follows that he has no right of audience in Court, as such right is a natural and necessary concomitant of the right to plead.

Mst. SANA ASLAM vs ALI IMRAN S — 2024 CLC 550 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC