NISAR AHMED and others vs NAVEED-UD-DIN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, who had accepted a review application and set aside remissions previously granted to the petitioners by jail and provincial authorities. The core legal question was whether a Single Judge of the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to hear and decide a review application arising from an order originally passed by a Division Bench of the same Court. The Supreme Court held that judicial propriety and procedural norms dictate that a review application must be placed before the same Bench that passed the original order, provided those judges are available. Finding that the Single Judge erred in entertaining the review application when the original Division Bench was available, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded to the High Court of Sindh with directions to constitute an appropriate Bench, preferably comprising the original judges, to dispose of the review application in accordance with the law.
- Can a Single Judge of the High Court hear a review application against an order passed by a Division Bench of the same Court?
- Is it procedurally required for a review application to be placed before the same Bench that passed the original order?
- What is the appropriate course of action when a review application is heard by an improperly constituted Bench?
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---Leave to appeal is sought against an order dated 4th of July, 2003 by means of which the learned Judge of the High Court of Sindh (Bench at Sukkur) accepted the review application and by recalling the order dated 2-10-2001 set aside the remissions granted to petitioners by the Jail Authorities as well as the Provincial Government and directed that petitioners be taken into custody and remanded to jail for serving out the remaining portion of their respective sentences.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate- General Sindh and have also gone through the contents of the impugned order. Admittedly, the order sought to be reviewed had been passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court, and therefore, in all propriety, the review arising therefrom ought to have been placed before the same Division Bench and the learned Single Judge should not have proceeded to hear and dispose of the same. It is pertinent to mention that learned Judges of the Division Bench were available, and it appears that the office of the High Court of Sindh did not bring the facts into the notice of the Worthy Chief Justice before the constitution of the Bench. In this view of the matter, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same with the consequence and the order impugned is set aside, the case is remanded to the High Court of Sindh for the constitution of Bench for disposal of the review application in accordance with law, preferably by the learned Judges who had heard the main case earlier.
' Petition converted into appeal. Case, remanded to the High Court of Sindh.
Cited by 4 cases
- Babar Anwar vs Muhammad Ashraf and another 2024 SCP 128, 2024 SCMR 734, 2024 PLJ SC 373
- Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Ghulam Mustafa, etc. 2023 PLJ Lahore 550
- Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar and another vs Syed Ehsan Ur Rehman and others 2022 SCP 146, 2022 PSC 1185, 2022 SCMR 1398
- IJAZ BASHIR QURESHI Versus SHAMS-UN-NISA QURESHI 2021 SCMR 1298