Messrs TOYS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive vs HAIDER
This matter arises from a civil revision application filed before the Sindh High Court, wherein the applicant's counsel sought to withdraw the revision application in light of a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan holding that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has no retrospective effect. While the applicant requested conditional withdrawal to pursue alternative proceedings, the respondent objected to any conditions while conceding that the revision was liable to be dismissed based on the cited precedent. The Court held that the application should be dismissed as not pressed, while observing that the applicant is at liberty to seek any remedy available in accordance with the law.
- Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 have retrospective effect?
- Can a revision application be permitted to be withdrawn with special conditions over the objection of the respondent?
- What is the effect of a Supreme Court precedent on pending revision applications involving the same legal question?
- Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
ORDER
' AQEEL ALI ABBASI, J.---Today learned counsel for the applicant has moved an application for withdrawal of the instant revision application along with a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Dr. Muhammad Safdar v. Edward Henry Louis (PLD 2009 SC 404) in which it has been held that Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has no retrospective effect, and has overruled the earlier Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan 2 others (PLD 27 SC 423). Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the instant revision application A with the condition that the applicant may be permitted to file appropriate proceedings against the respondents before the competent Court. Learned counsel for the respondent does not object to simple withdrawal of the instant application, as according to him, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant revision is otherwise liable to be dismissed, however, he objects to conditional withdrawal of the application.
2. In view of the above, the application is dismissed as not pressed. However, the applicant may be at liberty to seek remedy, if available, in accordance with law.