- It appears from the record that legal representative of Kh. Muhammad Ishaque were ordered to be entered as decree holders by the Court but the office in compliance of this order did not enter the legal representatives as decree holders in execution application. Similarly in the copy of order issued to the appellants the name of Kh. Muhammad Ishaque was entered as decree holder/applicant. It is normal practice that Advocates while drafting an appeal usually rely upon the copy of order or judgment furnished to them. A perusal of copy of order annexed as ‘Annexeure A’ with the High Court file shows that the name of Court, file number, the names of parties including that of Kh. Muhammad Ishaque is hand written while copy of order is photostat one, which led the Advocate to enter the names of persons written in the copy of order as parties in the memorandum of appeal before the High Court. It clearly appears the mistake of the Court of District Judge Muzaffarabad, due to which the counsel for the appellant was misled. Held: It is settled principle of law that a party should not suffer due to the Act of the Court. Muhammad Younas Khan & others v. Badar-ul-Islam & 9 others 2010 SCR 441 (A)
- Ordinarily a person who moves an application before an authority cannot be allowed to subsequently challenge the decision made by such authority if it goes against him — In the present case it was the High Court which directed the deceased appellant to get the property declared as non-evacuee and it is under the directions of the High Court that the deceased appellant approached the Deputy Custodian — This is duly stated in the writ petition but has not been denied which leads to the conclusion that this statement is correct. Held: Under the circumstances no blame should lie on the deceased appellant for having moved an application which was misconceived. Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim & 4 others v. Rehabilitation Department and others 2010 SCR 466 (C)
- Argument — Decree is passed against dead person — Admittedly the legal heirs were brought on record — Due to omission of the trial Court, the names of legal heirs could not be recorded in the decree — Held: It is an accepted principle of law that no one should suffer for any error or act of the Court — The Courts are vested with powers to correct such error or omission at any time. Shahida Iftikhar & 3 others v. Shabana Mumtaz & 2 others 2011 SCR 273 (A)
- It is settled principle of law that no one shall suffer due to the act of the Court or act of a public functionary, on the action of whom, a citizen has no control. Tanveer Fatima versus Divisional Director Schools & others 2016 SCR 714 (F/1) 2005 SCR 44, 2006 SCR 312 2007 SCR 208, 2010 SCR 441 and 2011 SCR 273 rel.
- — no one should be penalized for an act of the Court or public functionary. Mohammad Maqsood Khan v. Raja M. Naseer Khan & others 2017 SCR 1302 (A)
- —It is well settled law that on the basis of an act or omission of any authority or the Court, a party cannot be made to suffer. Raja Khalid Mehmood & others vs Muhammad Hussain &others 2018 SCR 1195 (E)
error: Content is protected !!