P L D 2022 Supreme Court 699
----S. 41---Transfer by ostensible owner---Protection under S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Pre-requisites---Such protection can only be claimed when the following conditions are fulfilled: first, the transferor is the ostensible owner; second, he is so by the consent, express or implied, of the real owner; third, the transfer is for consideration; and fourth, the transferee has acted in good faith, taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to transfer.
Civil Procedure Code 1908.
----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Matters decided by Special/Administrative Tribunals---Limited jurisdiction of Civil Courts---Grounds upon which the legality of an order passed by administrative tribunals or authorities, such as the revenue hierarchy, may be challenged before the civil courts stated.
i. Whether the matter falls within the scope of the power conferred by the relevant statute upon the administrative tribunal making the impugned order;
ii. Whether the impugned order could have been made under the relevant statute by the administrative tribunal;
iii. Whether the impugned order states the ground/reason on which it has been made;
iv. Whether the ground/reason stated in the impugned order falls within the grounds stated by the relevant statute;
v. Whether a fair and meaningful opportunity of hearing was provided to the aggrieved person before making the impugned order; and
vi. Whether the finding recorded in the impugned order on disputed fact(s) is based on some evidence.
P L D 2022 Supreme Court 699
Civil Procedure Code 1908---
----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 199---Matters within jurisdiction of Special/Administrative Tribunals---Limited jurisdiction of Civil Courts---Scope---When a special tribunal is found to have acted not in accordance with the law under which it purportedly acted, its act does not come within the scope of the exclusionary provisions of the law that bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts---However, the Civil Court cannot, in its limited jurisdiction of examining legality of the challenged order, record additional evidence on the disputed fact and re-decide the same, as an appellate court of the administrative tribunal---Civil Court can interfere with and set aside only such finding of the administrative tribunal which is based upon no evidence or which no reasonable person can record on the basis of the evidence available before the administrative tribunal.
In view of the general jurisdiction conferred by section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C."), Civil Courts have the ultimate jurisdiction, even where their jurisdiction relating to certain civil matters is barred, to examine the acts, proceedings or orders of those special tribunals and determine whether or not such acts, proceedings or orders have been done, taken or made in accordance with law. Accordingly, when a special tribunal is found to have acted not in accordance with the law under which it purportedly acted, its act does not come within the scope of the exclusionary provisions of the law that bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court.
By examining and determining whether or not the plaintiff had been dealt with in accordance with law by the administrative tribunal or authority in making the impugned order, a Civil Court enforces right of the plaintiff to be dealt with in accordance with law (Article 4 of the Constitution), and does not deal with and decide upon the merits of the lis decided in the impugned order by the administrative tribunal or authority in exercise of its exclusive statutory power. Besides the ordinary remedy before Civil Court under section 9 of the C.P.C., an aggrieved person may invoke the extraordinary remedy before a High Court provided under Article 199 of the Constitution, for the enforcement of his constitutional right to be dealt with in accordance with law regarding matters decided by the administrative tribunal or authority. Such extraordinary remedy before High Court, however, does not affect or extinguish the ordinary remedy which may be available before Civil Courts. Both these remedies are concurrent; however, when one is availed, the other becomes barred under the principle of res judicata.
Civil Court cannot, in its limited jurisdiction of examining legality of the challenged order, record additional evidence on the disputed fact and re-decide the same, as an appellate court of the administrative tribunal. When there exists some evidence and that evidence reasonably supports the finding recorded by the administrative tribunal, it is not the function of Civil Court to reappraise that evidence and to substitute its own finding. Civil Court can interfere with and set aside only such finding of the administrative tribunal which is based upon no evidence or which no reasonable person can record on the basis of the evidence available before the administrative tribunal
P L D 2022 Supreme Court 699
Civil Procedure Code 1908)
----S. 9, O. VIII, R.1, O. X, R. 1 & O. XV, Rr. 3, 4---Civil suit challenging order passed by Special/Administrative Tribunals---Procedural and evidentiary requirements that a Civil Court may adopt for such a suit stated.
The defendant to whom the summons have been issued for the final disposal of the suit, may at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence under Rule 1 of Order VIII, C.P.C., or his pleader may make a statement admitting or denying the allegations made in the plaint, under Rule 1 of Order X, C.P.C. And the Court on such written statement, if presented by the defendant, or on such statement made by his pleader, proceeds to record the issues and direct the parties for the production of the necessary evidence, as per Rule 4 of Order XV, C.P.C.
The necessary evidence, in such suits, being the complete record of the proceedings conducted by the administrative tribunal, is such that can be produced by the parties at once. The plaintiff can, therefore, in his statement produce the certified copies of such record, and also explain his grounds of challenge to the proceedings conducted and
the order made by the administrative tribunal. Likewise, on the defendant's side, the defendant or his representative or custodian of the relevant record can in his statement produce such record of the proceedings which the plaintiff has omitted to produce, and reply to the grounds of challenge made by the plaintiff. Thus, statements of the plaintiff and of the defendant/his representative/custodian of the record along with the record of the proceedings are ordinarily sufficient evidence to decide the issue of legality of the order challenged in the suit.
0 Comments