MEHDI HASAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition upholding his ejectment from a rented shop. The respondent-landlord had sought eviction on the ground of personal requirement for his son, which was ordered by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an appellate court judgment can be challenged merely on the ground of being brief, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that an appellate judgment is not required to be unnecessarily long as long as it is intelligible, addresses the points urged, and clearly reflects the ratio decidendi. Furthermore, the Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was not properly invoked as no valid ground was raised. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an appellate court judgment can be set aside merely on the ground that it is brief?
- Is an appellate court bound to write an unnecessarily long judgment when the decision is intelligible and to the point?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked without raising a proper ground in the writ petition?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12-4-1981, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. Tlic facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly, are; that Mehdi Hassan, petitioner was a tenant of Sh. Sardar Muhammad, respondent in respect of the shop in Rawalpindi. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of personal requirement, for use by his son. The learned Rent Controller decided the issue of personal need in respondent's favour and ordered the petitioner's ejectment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal against his eviction which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi on 13-5-1981, upholding the finding of the Rent Controller to respect of the issue of personal need. The petitioner, then challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, in the High Court through writ petition which was dismissed on 12-4-1981. Hence, the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. The only contention raised by the petitioner's learned counsel is that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is very short. We have gone through the impugned judgment and we feel that the learned Appellate Court has decided the question urged before his very succinctly. The order is, indeed, brief, but. It clearly indicates the point urged before the Court and the ratio of the decision is also evident. We agree withthe finding given by the learned Additional District Judge and feel that h was not bound to record unnecessarily a long judgment as long as it is intelligible and to the point.
4. No contention on which the constitutional jurisdiction of the. High Court could have been properly invoked was taken in the writ petition. It would, therefore, have been dismissed on that short ground and the High Court was not required to enter into the merits of the case.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force.
Cited by 1 case
- WALAYAT BEGUM and others vs WAZIR BEGUM and others 1992 CLC 553