Mst. BIBI SALIMA alias Katkai vs HASAN BAHADAR S — 2025 CLC 1571 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Mst. BIBI SALIMA alias Katkai VS HASAN BAHADAR S. 115---Suo motu revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---General powers of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C.---Limitations---Scope---General powers under S. 115, C.P.C., have no nexus with limitation and cannot be curtailed or restricted by the limitation---Such power is exercisable where the High Court itself found any error of the nature provided in S. 115, C.P.C., without there being any application by aggrieved person---High Court in its revisional jurisdiction can take cognizance for correction of illegalities and irregularities in judgments and orders of subordinate court as suo motu and no bar of limitation can be placed against suo motu jurisdiction of revisional court---Such powers of the Courts can be ascertained from the plain language used in Section 115 of C.P.C. and the intention of the legislature, whereas exercise of this jurisdiction if allowed to go into the spiral of technicalities and restrictions of limitation, the very purpose behind conferring such jurisdiction would be defeated. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1571 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. BIBI SALIMA alias Katkai VS HASAN BAHADAR O. VI, R. 17---amendment in the pleadings---Scope---Joint written statement---absence of stance of one of the defendants---Effect---Presentation of separate amended written statement---Scope---application for amendment in the written statement was declined by the courts below concurrently---Validity---There was a joint written statement for the defendants including the petitioner, thus, no details for petitioner were specifically mentioned therein except the details of legal heirs of the erstwhile predecessor-in-interest of the parties, however, the significance aspect was the denial of the defendants including the petitioner, thus, the filing of written statement could not be termed as repelling to the written statement already filed by the defendants---Declining the request of the petitioner for submission of her written statement (amended) would amount to depriving her of placing her actual stance before the court and it would negate the provisions of O. VI R. 17, C.P.C, which was not permissible and the court would be unable to decide the lis in accordance with law unless the written statement is placed before the court---Viewing the joint written statement where no specification of the clear stance, cancellation of power of attorney, appointment of fresh attorney, principle of amendment, determination of real controversy, the petitioner was entitled for submission of separate written statement---Courts below were required to decide the application of the petitioner with proper application of law and mind, however, applications of the petitioner were not decided through proper application of mind and law had not been applied in its true perspective as the decision assailed in the civil revision was not the mandate of law, as such, that could not be sustained---Civil Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1571 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. BIBI SALIMA alias Katkai VS HASAN BAHADAR S. 201---Powers of attorney act (VII of 1882), S. 2---Power of attorney---Powers of principal---Scope---It is the choice of the principal to delegate his/her powers for his/her representation in legal proceedings to anyone and the principal may cancel the powers bestowed upon the attorney---Powers of the principal cannot be restricted either by the act of the court or by any other implication.

Mst. BIBI SALIMA alias Katkai vs HASAN BAHADAR S — 2025 CLC 1571 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC