RAB NAWAZ And Another vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH And Other
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of their writ petition challenging an order of remand passed by the District Judge in a civil matter. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere in pending civil litigation under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in pending civil proceedings, particularly when the trial court has been specifically directed to decide all issues, including objections raised under the relevant statute. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that lower courts are bound to follow the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court and address all framed issues accordingly.
- Should the High Court interfere in pending civil litigation under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Are the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court binding upon all courts in Pakistan?
- Section 32, Arbitration Act 1940
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing their writ petition from an order of remand made by the District Judge.
2. After hearing the learned counsel we are unable to disagree with the learned Single Judge that ordinarily the High Court should not in constitutional jurisdiction interfere in pending civil litigation.
The petitioners apprehend that the trial Court would not record a finding in respect of their objection based on section 32 of the Arbitration Act and that it might also, perhaps, overlook the decision of this Court in Badri Narayan Agarwala v. Pak Jute Balers Limited PLD 1970 SC 43. This apprehension is entirely unfounded. The learned Single Judge has already observed that the principles of law enunciated by this Court are binding upon all Courts in Pakistan. In the order of remand made by the learned District Judge the Trial Court has been directed to decide all issues including the one about which the petitioners are so concerned. In the circumstances no case for interference by this Court has been made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
M.I.IR-20/S revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.