Mirza TASAWAR ALI BEG vs ABDUR RASHID KHAN AND Another
This matter concerns the maintainability of an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a request for leave to appeal regarding a property dispute. The Court held that the appeal filed by Mst. Feroze Fatima is maintainable as of right under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as the High Court judgment was of variance and the property value exceeded fifty thousand rupees. Furthermore, the Court granted leave to appeal to her husband, Mirza Tasawar Ali Beg, in his separate petition concerning the same property, noting that hearing the cases together would avoid contradictory decisions and address important questions of law and fact. Regarding the prayer for stay of execution of the High Court decree, the Court ordered that the status quo be maintained, allowing the respondent to retain possession of the property while preventing the petitioner from interfering, thereby balancing the convenience of both parties pending the final decision of the appeals.
- Is an appeal maintainable as of right under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when a High Court judgment is of variance and involves property exceeding fifty thousand rupees?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to avoid contradictory decisions in related cases involving the same property?
- What criteria does the Court apply when granting a stay of execution and implementation of a High Court decree pending appeal?
- Article 185(2)(d), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Appeal of Mst Feroze Fatima is maintainable as of right as qua her the High Court judgment dated 8-7-1981 is of variance and the case involves questions regarding property over fifty thousand. See Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution.
2. In the face of the aforesaid, the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 864 of 1981, filed by her husband Mirza Tasawar Ali Beg which is against the aforesaid (common) judgment of the High Court dated 8-7-1981 and pertains to the same property also deserves admission, to avoid any contradictory decision by this Court in these two cases which even otherwise involve important question of Law and fact. Consequently we grant leave to appeal. Security Rs. 2,000.
3. There was a prayer for stay of the execution and implementation of the High Court judgment and decree under appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is already in possession of the property in dispute and he may continue retaining that possession and the petitioner will not make any interference therewith. Similarly he states that status quo may be allowed to him also vis-a-vis, the execution and implemen--tation of the High Court judgment and decree till the decision of these cases. The arrangement suggested seems to be quite fair and just inasmuch as it is not likely to prejudice any party, and will rather maintain the balance of convenience evenly between them. Order accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.