Chaudhry PHOOL MUHAMMAD And Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT
This petition is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court partly accepting a writ petition and remanding a property dispute case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, for fresh disposal. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter when an earlier petition and a civil petition for special leave to appeal concerning the same land had been dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the previous writ petition was dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party rather than on merits, and given the large extent of the property involving a bungalow and open land, further scrutiny was warranted in the interests of justice. The Court declined to interfere with the remand order, noting that the petitioners could raise all available legal defenses before the competent authority. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a case can be remanded for fresh decision when an earlier writ petition was dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party?
- Does the dismissal of a petition for non-joinder constitute a final determination on the merits to bar subsequent proceedings?
- Is an appellate court inclined to interfere with a High Court's remand order when further scrutiny of a large property dispute is required in the interests of justice?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition is directed against the order, dated 6-12-1960 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 744-R of 1977.
2. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was partly accepted. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, has transferred an area of 12 Kanals 5 Marlas 259 sq.Ft. To the contesting respondents on the ground that their forms had not been considered under Settlement Scheme Nos. VI and VIII. The order of transfer was cancelled by the learned Judge in the High Court.
3. However, the case was remitted to the competent authority for disposing of the alleged form, after hearing all the interested parties.
4. Mr. A.R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order so far as it directed the remand of the case for ascertaining the entitlement of the respondents 2 to 5 was not justified, as the said respondent's earlier petition challenging the transfer of this land in favour of the petitioners had been dismissed on 5-12-1973 and the petition for special leave to appeal (Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 191 of 1974) was also dismissed by this Court on 9-10-1974.
5. We observe that the earlier writ petition was dismissed for non---joinder of a necessary party and that on the merits and, therefore, the case could not be deemed to have been heard and finally determined. The property in question, we observe, is a large one, a bungalow with open land measuring about 31 Kanals and the question whether the petitioners can get the entire open land along with the bungalow does indeed require further scrutiny. We feel, therefore, that the determination of this point in the presence of all the parties will Conduce to the interests of justice and are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. We may, however, observe that the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all the points available to them under the law in their defence during the proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on remand.
6. This petition, subject to the above observation, stands dismissed.