2016 GBLR 248

BABAR KHAN Versus GHULAM

Citation2016 GBLR 248

CourtSupreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan

Judge(s)Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan

ORDER

DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.--- Malik Shafqat Wali Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court without considering the legal position has allowed amendments in the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. which was upheld by the learned District Judge vide order dated 22.05.2013 in Civil Revision No. 21/2012. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order filed Writ Petition No. 61/2013 before the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, who passed order in one line and the petition was dismissed in limine without giving any reason vide order dated 27.08.2013, which is against the natural justice.

2. He further contends that two (02) independent transactions had been undertaken between the parties i.e. one transaction between one Muhammad Jami and the respondent while the other transaction between the petitioner and one Kareem Ullah Khan, as such two independent cause of actions arisen in different occasions. The present respondents tried to engage the petitioner in the subsequent transaction which cannot be sustained as the subsequent transaction has a new cause of action which is not disputed. He finally contends that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2013 which is not tenable in law hence, the same is required to be set aside.

3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order of the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He submits that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition of the petitioner as the same was filed against order dated 22.05.2012 passed in Civil Revision No. 21/2012 which was not maintainable. He finally submits that the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court may graciously be maintained being well reasoned and well founded.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. In our considered view the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 is not a speaking order as no reasons have been given while dismissing Writ Petition in limine.

5. In view of the above discussions, we convert this petition into an appeal and the same is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court to hear the parties afresh whereafter decide the same on its own merits.

6. The petition is allowed in above terms.

HBT/96/GB Case remanded.