COOPERATIVE MODEL TOWN SOCIETY vs Mst. ASGHARI SAFDAR and others
This review petition arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the procedural requirement of appending a certified copy of a decree to a memorandum of appeal. The petitioner sought a review, arguing that the Court failed to consider the precedent established in Baseer Ahmed Siddiqui v. Shama Afroz (1988 SCMR 892) regarding the dispensation of this requirement. Upon review, the Supreme Court distinguished the present case from the cited precedent. The Court noted that in the cited case, the certified copy was unavailable to the petitioner despite an application, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner possessed the copy but failed to append it to the appeal. Furthermore, the Court held that the initial judgment was based on the petitioner's gross negligence and contumacy, rendering the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 inappropriate. The Court reaffirmed that procedural precedents must be construed within the context of the peculiar circumstances of each case. Consequently, finding no valid grounds for review, the petition was dismissed.
- Whether a certified copy of a decree can be dispensed with when the appellant already possesses it but fails to append it to the memorandum of appeal?
- Does the failure to append a certified copy of a decree to a memorandum of appeal constitute gross negligence justifying the refusal of discretionary relief?
- Should precedents regarding procedural requirements be applied strictly or construed in the context of the specific facts of each case?
- Article 185, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- Review of judgment dated 9-12-2002 of this Court is sought on the ground that while taking the view that production of certified copy of decree with the memo. Of appeal could not be dispensed with the judgment in the case of Baseer Ahmed Siddiqui v. Shama Afroz 1988 SCM R 892, which was referred at the time of hearing of the petition has not been noticed.
2. We have gone through this judgment and find that it has proceeded on its own facts, for in the reported case, the petitioner though had made application for supply of certified copy of the decree appealed against but the same was not made available to him when he preferred the appeal, the Court summoned the original record and the copy supplied to him whereas in this case, it was found as a matter of fact that the copy of the judgment and decree appealed against was available with the petitioner but he preferred the appeal without appending the same with the memo. Even otherwise, it was held in the judgment under review that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretion for giant of leave under Article 185 of the Constitution as the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence and contumacy, therefore, the judgment under review and the judgment reported in the above referred case should be construed in the context of peculiar circumstance of each case.
3. No ground is made out for review, therefore, this petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.