Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 279

Al Haj S.M. NOOR & SONS vs BEGUM ZEENAT SULTAN KHAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 279
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. K-233 of 1984
Date1984-09-24
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi
Authored byAslam Riaz Hussain
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition directed against the order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal in a rent matter. The core legal question is whether a party who chose not to contest their appeal on merits before the High Court, instead seeking and being granted time to vacate the premises, can subsequently challenge the dismissal of that appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition is frivolous and the petitioner has no right to challenge the High Court's orders on merits after failing to contest the appeal below. The key principle laid down is that a litigant who abandons a challenge on merits and obtains an extension of time to vacate cannot turn around and file a petition against the consented or uncontested dismissal order.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a petitioner challenge an appellate order on merits before the Supreme Court when they chose not to contest the appeal on merits before the High Court?
  • Does a party who requested and was granted time to vacate the premises have the right to subsequently challenge the eviction order?
rent matterevictionfrivolous applicationsupreme court petitioncivil procedure

ORDER

1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This petition is directed against the order of the Sind High Court, dated 11-3-19134 dismissing the petitioner's appeal in a rent matter.

2. The petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the premises in question by the orders of the Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 16-1-1982. Feeling aggrieved he went up to the High Court in appeal against the said order. But before the High Court he did not press the appeal and merely requested for further time to vacate the premises. He was, therefore, granted six months' time for that purpose. But he has now filed the present petition, challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court.

3. After hearing the counsel and going through the record we feel that this is a frivolous application filed merely to gain more time. The petitioner had himself not contested the appeal on merits before the High Court. He has, therefore, no right to challenge the High Court orders on merits through a petition before this Court.

4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.