Pakistan Case Law
1987 SCMR 1530

GHULAM RASOOL And Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1987 SCMR 1530
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 547 of 1976
Date1987-08-30
Judge(s)Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Qureshi
Authored byKaram Elahee Chauhan
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition where the learned counsel submitted that the provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance concerning the abatement of cases are procedural in nature and possess retrospective effect, thereby avoiding the abatement of the writ petition in the present case. It was noted that leave to appeal had previously been granted by the Supreme Court on this identical legal point in several earlier matters. The core legal question addressed is whether the provisions relating to abatement under the Law Reforms Ordinance apply retrospectively as procedural law. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal is granted to examine this question, directing the matter to be heard along with a connected pending case upon furnishing security. The key principle recognized is that procedural amendments concerning abatement may have retrospective application, warranting a formal authoritative determination by the appellate court when raised.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Are the provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance dealing with the abatement of cases of a procedural nature having retrospective effect?
  • Does a writ petition abate under the Law Reforms Ordinance when procedural amendments apply retrospectively?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Law Reforms Ordinance
abatement of casesLaw Reforms Ordinanceretrospective effectprocedural lawleave to appeal

ORDER

1. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--Learned counsel submits that provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance which deal with abatement of cases are of a procedural nature and would be of a retrospective effect, with the result, that in the light of those provisions there would be no abatement of the writ petition in this case. He submits to consider this point leave to appeal has already been granted by this Court in Ch. Shafqat A.I v. Rao Abdus Sattar 1074 Law Notes 149; Ghulam Haider v. Mst. Raj Bhari and others 1975 SCMR 252 and Mst. Safia Begum, etc. v.

2. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, etc. (in which leave was granted on 2-3-1981). Leave is granted in this case also. To be heard along with the last mentioned case. Security Rs.2,000.

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