Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 509

MUHAMMAD SADIQ And Others vs Malik TAJ MUHAMMAD And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 509
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 366-R of 1985 in Civil Petition No. 288-R of
Date1985-11-29
Judge(s)Muhammad Haleem, C. J. Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman
Authored byMuhammad Haleem
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for leave to appeal arising from a civil or constitutional dispute adjudicated in the High Court. The core legal question addressed by the Court is whether a controversy already conceded by a party in the High Court remains open for subsequent adjudication before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recalled its earlier order of dismissal, restored the petition to file upon hearing the petitioners' counsel, but ultimately dismissed the petition on the short ground that the matter was no longer open for adjudication due to the express concession made by the petitioners in the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a party who has made a concession before a lower court is precluded from reopening or agitating the same controversy in subsequent proceedings before the apex court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a party reopen a controversy in the Supreme Court after making a concession on the matter in the High Court?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be dismissed on the short ground of a previous concession made by the petitioner?
petition for leave to appealconcession in High Courtreopening of controversydismissal of petitionsupreme court practice

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we recall our order of dismissal and restore the petition to file, but dismiss it on the short ground that the controversy is no longer open for adjudication because of the concession of the petitioners in the High Court.

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