MESSRS ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND Other
These civil review petitions challenge a previous judgment of the Supreme Court which held that a company supplanted by the Custodian of Enemy Property, while remaining an alien enemy, lacks the status of an 'aggrieved party' to challenge orders in the High Court. The petitioner contended that the Court's previous reasoning improperly allowed subordinate legislation, specifically the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965, to modify the definition of 'aggrieved party' under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, arguing that such a modification requires constitutional legislation. The Supreme Court rejected this submission, noting that the argument had been fully addressed and decided in the original appeal. The Court held that the review petitions were essentially an attempt to reargue points already settled, which is impermissible within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as lacking substance.
- Can a company supplanted by the Custodian of Enemy Property qualify as an aggrieved party to challenge orders in the High Court?
- Is it permissible to reargue points already decided in an appeal during review proceedings?
- Can subordinate legislation modify the scope of the term 'aggrieved party' as used in the Constitution of 1962?
- Article 98, Constitution of 1962
- Section 83, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965
- Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J -This order will govern Civil Review Petitions Nos. 33-R and 34-R of 1978, arising out of Civil Appeals Nos. 86 and 87 of 1971 which were decided by a common judgment of this Court dated 8th of May, 1978.
2. Mr. Fazlur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the reasoning for the conclusion reached therein, namely, that since the company in this case has been supplanted by the Custodian of Enemy Property for all purposes so long as the company remains an alien enemy, it cannot claim to be an aggrieved party so as to be able to insist that in the High Court the two petitions filed by it against the impugned orders were improperly dismissed and contends that in holding so this Court had over-stepped the limits as the purport of the words "aggrieved party" in Article 98 of the erstwhile Constitution of .1962, was modified with reference to subordinate legislation such as section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code ; the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965 ; and that this can only be done by a Constitutional legislation. This submission forms part of the first contention urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, which was dealt with and a finding given. Therefore, this is another attempt to reargue the point which is not permissible having regard to the limited nature of the jurisdiction exercised.
3. Accordingly, both the petitions are without substance and are dismissed.