MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs ATAULLAH And Other
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had refused to interfere with an earlier settlement revision order that had already attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is competent against an order previously passed by the High Court itself, and whether a separate civil suit is maintainable to reagitate matters already concluded by final judicial determinations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a writ petition cannot be issued against the High Court as it is not a 'person' under Article 199, and that initiating subsequent civil litigation or writ proceedings on questions already concluded is barred and constitutes frivolous litigation. The Court laid down the principle that the High Court cannot issue a writ against its own orders, and that vexatious attempts to reopen finally adjudicated matters through fresh litigation will attract the imposition of costs.
- Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against an order passed by the High Court itself?
- Can a party initiate civil litigation or writ proceedings to reagitate questions already concluded in previous rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court?
- Is the imposition of costs justified in cases involving frivolous and vexatious litigation?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The dispute between the parties had been decided on 12-12-1974 in the earlier round, by the Lahore High Court in Settlement Revision No. 52 of 1965, against which the petitioners plea for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court had been rejected first by the dismissal of their Civil Petition on 29-7-1975, and then by the dismissal of their Review Petition on 12-12-1976 and another Review Petition on 9-4-1978. Having thus failed, the petitioners started a new round by instituting a civil suit but when the same was dismissed on 3-2-1980 and so was their appeal on 16- 3-1980, they again came to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 574-R of 1980. Their attempt, in substance, was the reversal of the order passed in the aforesaid Settlement Revision. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on 23-9-1980 by a learned Single Judge by the impugned order upon the view that:- "It is doubtful as to whether the petitioners are entitled without risk to raise any of the submissions having lost the same thrice over in the highest Court in the land. Surely, it is not possible for this Court to entertain these submissions, which have no substance either."
Aggrieved, the petitioners have sought leave to appeal by filing these to petitions, Civil Petition No. 1472 of 1980 by Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Yaqub and Civil Petition No. 1482 of 1980 by Muhammad Rafiq.
2. As appears from the impugned order, the petitioners had questioned the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench in the Settlement Revision on certain grounds. Thus they were seeking a writ against an order earlier passed by the High Court itself, which they could not do under Article 199 of the Constitution inasmuch as the High Court was not a "person" as defined in clause (5) of that Article, against whom the High Court was empowered to issue a writ. The recourse of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was thus not competent. In fact in view of this Court's pronouncement in Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind PLD 1983 SC 46, resort to civil litigation on questions already concluded in the previous round was barred. Such frivolous and vexatious litigation cannot be permitted to go unnoticed. The other party has been put to expense by lodging a caveat. This is, therefore, a fit case where costs should be awarded under Order XXVIII, rule 3 read with Order XIII, rule 5 of this Court's Rules. We, accordingly, while dismissing these petitions, direct the petitioners concerned to pay, in each petition, a sum of Rs.2,000 (rupees to thousand only) in gross in lieu of taxed costs. The amounts, on realization shall be paid to respondents 1 to 3.
Cited by 1 case
- Dr. Bhagwan Dass and another vs Habib Bank Limited 2021 CLD 406