Muhammad Tufail And Other vs Ubedul Haq And Other
This matter arises from four civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the judgments of the subordinate courts and remanded the case back to the trial court. The core legal question in the underlying suits was whether the defendants had encroached upon the property owned by the plaintiffs. Finding that this controversy had remained unresolved by the lower courts, the High Court held that the issue must be resolved by proceeding in terms of Rules 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter I-M of Volume-I of the High Court Rules and Orders. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan found no illegality in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, upholding the remand order for proper determination of the encroachment dispute.
- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a matter to the trial court when the core controversy regarding property encroachment remains unresolved by the lower courts?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against a remand order where no illegality is pointed out in the impugned judgment of the High Court?
ORDER
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.- This order shall dispose of C.P.L.A. Nos. 806, 807, 808 and 809-L of 2003 as they arise out of the same consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23.1.2003 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 1262, 1263, 1264 and 1265 of 1995.
2. Having examined all aspects of the matter we find that the real question which required determination in the suits filed which had led to the above mentioned revision petitions, was whether the defendants had or had not encroached upon the property owned by the plaintiffs. For the reasons recorded therein the learned Judge in Chambers and further found that the said controversy had remained unresolved, It was the view of the learned Single Judge that the only way to settle the issue was to proceed in terms of Rules 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter I-M of Volume-I of the High Court Rules and Orders and the Hon'ble High Court directed accordingly after setting aside the judgments of the learned Subordinate Courts and by remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgment-of- the Hon'ble High Court which could justify grant of leave in the matter. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused