Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.12 SRA,O.XVIII,R-1,O.XII,R-6 CPC,Art.113 QSO:Suit for specific performance of contract--limitation--judgement on admission--effect

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 47 & 35---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Executionpetition---Cost of litigation---Scope---Execution petition was filed wherein objection petitionswere submitted which were dismissed concurrently---Validity---Judgment and decree passed infavour of plaintiffs had attained finality---Execution petition moved by the plaintiffs wasaccepted and defendant did not challenge the said order passed by the Executing Court---Noprovision was available in Civil Procedure Code to file objections to challenge the judgment anddecree which had been acted upon through execution petition---No proceeding was pendingbefore the Executing Court when second objection petition was submitted by the defendant---Objections filed for second time were dismissed by the Executing Court but such order was notassailed and same had attained finality---Objections filed for third time were submitted afterlapse of more than five months---Executing Court had rightly declined to entertain the objectionsfiled by the defendant---Defendant had failed to point out any illegality, irregularity orjurisdictional defect in the impugned order passed by the courts below---Defendant hadfraudulently mutated the property of plaintiffs in his favour---Such act of defendant compelledthe plaintiffs to approach the court in the year 1991 and since then they had been dragged inlitigation by the defendant which cost them a huge amount---Court had discretion to grant theactual cost of litigation to the successful party by the unsuccessful party---Plaintiffs were inlitigation in the present case for a long time in different courts---Conduct of defendant compelled the plaintiffs to start second round of litigation by filing execution petition---Plaintiffs had spenta huge amount upon the litigation including travelling and lodging expenses who were entitledfor actual cost of litigation but same had not been granted by the courts below---Plaintiffs hadnot only suffered mental and physical agony due to litigation but had also suffered huge financialloss/expenses not only during the trial of suit but also after obtaining a decree---Defendant waswilfully avoiding implementation of decree and had not only caused the actual cost of litigationbut was also responsible for the damages accrued to the plaintiffs---Court had power todetermine as to by whom or out of which property and to what extent such costs were to be paidand to give necessary directions for the said purpose---Court could pass an order as to costs evenit might not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit---Defendant should pay an amount ofRs.175,000/- to the plaintiffs as actual cost of litigation and an amount of Rs.25,000/- as acompensation for frivolous and false litigation---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.Kesavalu v. Venkatarama ((29) AIR 1942 Mad. 35 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. wasdiscretionary in nature---High Court could exercise such power in aid of justice and not to affectits ends---Revisional court would interfere where grave injustice or hardship would result onaccount of non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in the courts below---Section 115, C.P.C. hadconferred superintending and visitorial power of correction upon the High Court---High Courtmight call for the record of the courts subordinate to it by exercising power under S.115, C.P.C.and might exercise power of suo motu where it appeared that subordinate court had exercisedjurisdiction not vested in it or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted inexercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material illegality.(c) Words and Phrases-------"Jurisdiction"---Meaning---"Jurisdiction" is the power of administering justice according tothe means which law had provided.(d) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 203---Supervisory power of High Court over subordinate courts---Scope---High Courthas general power to supervise and control subordinate courts in the interest of administration ofjustice and not to benefit any party---High Court has been made the custodian of justice withinthe territorial limits of its jurisdiction to see that the justice is being fairly and properly done bythe courts subordinate to it.