Munir Husain and others vs Riffat Shamim and others
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously declined to grant leave to appeal and upheld a judgment of the Islamabad High Court. The underlying dispute involved the paternal uncles and aunts of the respondent, Tuba Sahab, who challenged her paternity seventeen years after the death of her father, Azhar Hussain. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court and the Supreme Court correctly applied the legal principles established in the case of Laila Qayyum v Fawad Qayum (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449) regarding the challenge to paternity. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that the previous judgment was correctly decided and applied the relevant precedent. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had failed to implement the High Court's judgment, remaining in possession of the estate and depriving the respondent of her inheritance. Consequently, the Court directed the District Collector, Revenue, Talagang, Punjab, to immediately ensure the devolution of the estate in accordance with the High Court's judgment.
- Does the filing of a review petition operate as an automatic stay of the judgment under review?
- Can the paternity of an individual be challenged by paternal relatives seventeen years after the death of the father?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court judgment that correctly applies established precedent regarding paternity?
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. Through this review petition order dated 14 November 2022 is sought to be reviewed. This Court had declined to grant leave to appeal and had upheld the judgment of the Islamabad High Court. The paternal uncles and aunts of Tuba Sahab challenged her paternity after about 17 years and did so after the death of her father, namely, Azhar Hussain. The learned Judge of the High Court had relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Laila Qayyu m v Fawad Qayum (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449) wherein the very same legal point raised in this matter had been deliberated upon at length. The learned counsel states that the order under review did not correctly apply the decision in the Laila Qayyum's case.
2. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the decision in the Laila Qayyum's case was not correctly applied either by the learned Judge of the High Court or by this Court. The judgment dated 2 April 2022 of the High Court, in favour of Tuba Sahab, was correctly upheld by this Court. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed.
3. We enquired from the learned counsel, who in turn enquired from the attorney of the petitioner, whether the judgment of the High Court has been implemented and the late Azhar Hussain's estate has been devolved on his legal heirs. Unfortunately, it was learnt that the petitioners continue to retain possession. The mere filing of a review petition does not operate as stay. The petitioners continue to be in open defiance not only of the judgment of the High Court but also of this Court while Tuba Sahab remains deprived of her inheritance. Therefore, we direct the District Collector, Revenue, Talagang, Punjab to immediately ensure that the requisite entries are made in the revenue record with regard to the estate left by Azhar Husain in accordance with the judgment of the High Court. Copy of the order passed today be sent to the District Collector, Revenue Talagang for information and compliance and to the respondent No. 2 (Tuba Sahab) for information.
Cited by 1 case
- WAQAR ALI RAHUJO Versus DILEEP KUMAR 2025 CLC 1394