MATEEN HAIDER vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal addresses the scope of an appellate court's authority to grant relief not sought in the original plaint. The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of dower (money and gold ornaments) but did not seek a decree regarding ownership rights in a specific house, despite mentioning it in the pleadings. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed. However, the First Appellate Court, while maintaining the recovery decree, granted an additional decree regarding ownership rights in the house. The Supreme Court considered whether an appellate court can grant relief not claimed by the plaintiff, especially when the plaintiff did not file an appeal or cross-objections regarding the omitted relief. The Court held that the First Appellate Court acted without legal justification in granting the decree regarding the house, as the respondent had not challenged the trial court's omission of that relief. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the appellate and High Court judgments concerning the house ownership, while maintaining the decree for the recovery of money and gold ornaments, establishing that appellate relief must remain confined to the scope of the original prayer and the grounds of appeal.
- Can an appellate court grant a decree regarding a claim that was not included in the prayer clause of the original plaint?
- Is an appellate court justified in granting relief to a respondent who has neither filed an appeal nor cross-objections regarding that specific relief?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to grant a decree for property ownership when the plaintiff did not seek such relief in the trial court?
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 1-10-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,3816 of 1999.
2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,1,00,000 and gold ornaments weighing 12 Tolas as dower amount. She alleged in paragraph 3 of the plaint that she was also transferred 1/4th share in House No,35-A Mason Road, Lahore by her deceased husband namely Sheikh Amin Haider but in the prayer clause she did not claim any decree qua the aforementioned house. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for i,e, recovery of amount of Rs,1,00,000 and gold ornaments weighing 12 Tolas. The petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who dismissed the same through judgment, dated 15-4-1999. The learned Additional District Judge granted his own decree regarding ownership rights in the house, against which writ petition filed by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 11-10-2000, against which leave is sought.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner on the last date of hearing expressed his desire to engage a counsel but today, he stated that the case may be decided after perusal of the record.
' The suit of respondent No,2 was decreed as per prayer made in the same i,e, recovery of an amount of Rs,1,00,000 and gold ornaments weighing 12 Tolas. She neither felt aggrieved as no appeal was filed by her to claim decree as regards the alleged rights in the house nor she filed cross-objections therefore, as a respondent, she could defend the decree passed in her favor. In these circumstances, legally the First A Appellate Court was not justified to grant decree as regards the alleged ownership rights in the house, particularly in view of the fact when it was denied that any share in the said house was ever transferred to the respondent as dower and entries in the Nikahnama were forged and result of interpolation, therefore, the judgment under review to this extent is not sustainable.
3. As regards the decree of recovery of an amount of Rs,1,00,000 and gold ornaments weighing 12 Tolas passed by the trial Court and maintained by the First Appellate Court and the High Court, the same does not suffer from any illegality as learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality on account of misreading or non-reading of the evidence on the record.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal, the same is partly allowed, judgment, dated 15-4-1994 of the learned Additional District Judge as regards decree relating to 1/4th share of House No,35-A Mason Road, Lahore and the judgment of the High Court dated 11-10- 2000 maintaining the said part of the decree are set aside. The appeal as regards decree of recovery of Rs,1, 00,000 and gold ornaments weighing 12 Tolas is hereby dismissed.
' No order as to costs.