Farooq Hussain, etc vs Sheikh Aftab Ahmad, etc
This matter arises from civil review petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking review of an earlier order dated 01.08.2019, whereby leave to appeal was declined. The core legal question addressed is whether the Supreme Court is legally obligated to write elaborate and detailed reasons when dismissing a leave petition and endorsing the well-reasoned judgment of a lower court, or if a concise order adopting the lower court's reasoning satisfies due process and fair trial requirements under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that when the Court is satisfied with the reasoning of the impugned judgment and declines interference, it can simply endorse and adopt the reasoning of the court below through a concise order without re-tracing the same path, and such practice does not violate the right to a fair trial or due process. The key principle laid down is that concise orders adopting lower court judgments in affirmed matters constitute efficient case management and valid judicial practice, avoiding unnecessary waste of public time.
- Whether the Supreme Court is required to write detailed reasons when dismissing a leave petition and upholding the judgment of the lower court?
- Does the adoption of a lower court's reasoning through a concise dismissal order violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a civil review petition be maintained merely on the ground that the order under review is brief and lacks extensive independent reasoning?
- Article 10-A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. After condoning the period of limitation (as under), we heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the impugned order , the record of the case and the law on the subject. W e find that no ground for review of the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 is made out.
2. We have also noticed that one of the grounds for review is that the order under review is without any reason. The order passed by this Court on 01.08.2019 was as under:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court, the record of the case and the law on the subject. We have not been able to take any exception to the reasoning of the impugned judgment and are of the view that it does not warrant any interference.
Leave is, therefore, declined and these petitions are dismissed."
It is emphasised that if this Court, having examined the judgment challenged before it, is satisfied with its reasoning and conclusions and is of the view that it does not call for any interference, this Court can simply endorse the impugned judgment and adopt the reason ing of the court below . In such a case, re-tracing the same path travelled by the court below appears to be an unnecessary exercise and a waste of public time - time which can be allocated to other cases where the decisions of the courts below have been overturned or modified. Finding no reversible error in the judgment, a concise, simple order can suffice. On the other hand, if the Court is to reverse or modify the judgment of the court below , the reasons for the reversal or modification must be set forth.
3. This approach adopted by the court, is by no means a short-cut which is offensive to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution nor does it in any manner undermine due process and fair-p lay. It is simply a creative way forward that spares the Court from writing opinions where a mere adoption of a well-reasoned judgement of the court below through a short order serves the purpose adequately .1
4. Nothing is cast in stone. Old practices evolve with changing times. Burgeoning population and the corresponding rapid increase in litigation require imagin ative solutions. Courts all over the world have moved on to efficient time and case management techniques. Therefore this ground for review is absolutely misconceived.
5. As no ground for review is made out, these civil review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
C.M.A.Nos. 2831-L/2019 and 3746-L of 2019)
6. These are applications for condonation of delay in filing the titled civil review petitions. For the reasons given in the said applications, the same are allowed. See: Appellate Opinion W riting, Federal Judicial Center , US (FJC-ETS-77-4)
Cited by 8 cases
- Ehsan Ali vs The State, etc 2024 LHC 5229, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 30
- Ehsan Ali vs The State, etc 2024 LHC 5229, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 30
- Usman Saeed vs Judge Accountability Court No. 3, Lahore and 3 others 2021 P Cr. L J 787
- Sajid Ali vs The State and others 2021 PLJ Lahore 166, 2021 LHC 23
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar vs Judge Accountability Court & others 2021 MLD 648, 2021 PLJ Lahore 30, 2021 LHC 5
- SAJID ALI Versus State 2021 YLR 2096
- Muhammad Nasir Versus State 2026 PCrLJ 1359
- Muhammad Khan Versus State 2026 YLR 1635