JANE MARGRETE WILLIAM through General Attorney M. Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate vs ABDUL HAMID MIAN
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a property dispute between Jane Margrete William and Abdul Hamid Mian. Several complex questions of law arise for consideration, including the legal definition and nature of a Benami transaction, whether such a transaction is recognized in Islam, and whether the transaction in the instant case qualifies as Benami. Additionally, the case examines the propriety of a Single Judge of the High Court suo motu granting the relief of possession without a formal amendment of the plaint, particularly where such inclusion alters the jurisdictional value of the matter to exceed Rs. 2,00,000, thereby impacting the appellate competence of a single bench versus a division bench. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these questions, confirmed the interim order previously granted, directed the appeal to be heard on the existing record with liberty to file further documents, and ordered security to be furnished.
- What in law constitutes a Benami transaction and is it recognized in Islam?
- Can a Single Judge of the High Court suo motu grant the relief of possession without the plaintiff seeking an amendment of the plaint?
- Does the inclusion of the relief of possession affecting the jurisdictional value alter the competency of a Single Bench to hear the appeal?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, ACTG. C.J.--- Several questions of law arise in this petition for leave namely, what, in law, is a Benami transaction? Could the instant transaction be termed to be a Benami one? Whether a Benami transaction is recognized in Islam?
2. ' It also requires to be seen whether the learned Single Judge deciding the appeal could have suo motu granted the relief of possession without the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. This matter assumes importance because the inclusion of the relief of possession would result in raising the jurisdictional value in this matter to an amount exceeding Rs,2,00,000 and in such a case the appeal would normally have to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the Lahore High Court.
3. Consequently a learned Single Judge would be unable to grant the relief of possession.
4. ' These questions inter alia require fuller examination. .
5. ' Interim order dated 13-10-1992 is confirmed.
6. ' This appeal shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file further documents, if any, at a very early date.
7. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs,5,000. 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.