LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General and others, vs Mrs,. MALKA DURANI and others,
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which remanded cases to the Additional District Judge, Lahore, for fresh disposal of appeals due to identified defects in the appellate court's judgment. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's order of remand in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that no substantial question of law was involved to warrant interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Court observed that the High Court correctly identified procedural defects in the appellate judgment and ordered a fresh decision. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined. The Court further directed the Additional District Judge to ensure the expeditious disposal of the pending appeals to avoid further delay. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's remand order when it is based on valid procedural grounds and no significant legal question is presented.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order remanding a case to an appellate court due to procedural defects?
- Does a remand order by the High Court for fresh decision of an appeal involve a substantial question of law under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.--- These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against the judgment, dated 12-1-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the cases were remanded to Additional District Judge, Lahore for disposal of appeals.
2. Learned counsel argued the case at some length but when pointed out that the defects which have been noted by the High Court were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Lahore and called upon him to satisfy as to whether this Court by ignoring such defects in the judgment of the appellate Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction, he could not answer satisfactorily but stated that judgment of the appellate Court is correct.
3. We are afraid the contention raised by him is not correct because learned Judge in Chambers, of the Court had pointed out defects in the judgment of the appellate Court and remanded the case for fresh decision of the appeal. Since next date of hearing is fixed for arguments on 29-1-2005, therefore, we are of the opinion that no question of law is involved in these petitions calling interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as such the petitions are dismissed and leave declined. Needless to observe, the Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of the appeals expeditiously without causing further delay in the decision.