PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD TAYYAB and 2 others
This matter concerns a series of petitions for leave to appeal arising from a common judgment dated 7-6-1987 rendered by the Lahore High Court. The Province of Punjab sought leave to appeal against this judgment, noting that several direct appeals had already been filed by both the Government and the affected property owners, specifically Civil Appeals 18 to 22, 54 of 1988, and Civil Appeals 212 and 233 of 1987. The Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the legal issues presented in the current petitions for leave to appeal were identical to those already pending before the Supreme Court in the aforementioned direct appeals. Consequently, the Supreme Court, after condoning the delay in the relevant cases, granted leave to appeal in all the petitions. The Court directed that these appeals be consolidated and heard alongside the previously filed appeals challenging the same High Court judgment. The Court further ordered that the appeals be prepared based on the existing record, with a specific direction for the parties to file all essential documents to facilitate the hearing.
- Can petitions for leave to appeal be consolidated with direct appeals challenging the same High Court judgment?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to condone delay in filing petitions for leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--All these petitions arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 7-6-1987 of the Lahore High Court.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General states that in addition to these petitions for leave to appeal several direct appeals by the Government as well as by the owners have been filed challenging the same judgment of the High Court. They include C.A-18 to C.A-22 and C.A-54 of 1988 by the Government and C.A.212 and C.A-233 of 1987 filed by the owners. He has further stated that all the points raised and involved in these petitions are also involved in the afore-noted appeals.
3. ' Accordingly while condoning the delay in the relevant cases we grant leave to appeal in all these matters. The appeals arising out of them shall be heard with all other appeals including those afore-noted wherein the same judgment of the High Court has been brought under challenge. The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction to file all essential documents.
Cited by 13 cases
- Main Qaiser Shah vs M/s Khyber Grace Private (Ltd) and others 2023 PHC 450, 2024 MLD 1399
- FBR through Chairman, Islamabad etc vs M/s Wazir Ali and Company etc 2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 359, 2020 P C T L R 1410, 2021 PLJ SC 1, 2020 P
- FBR through Chairman, Islamabad Versus WAZIR ALI AND COMPANY 2020 SCMR 959
- FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad Versus WAZIR ALI & COMPANY 2020 PTD 1140
- IYAZUL HAQ CHAUDHRY vs NIB BANK LIMITED through Authorized Attorney 2017 CLD 521
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and others vs Messrs MEDIA NETWORK and others 2006 PTD 2502
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and othersREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME_9148a018 2006 PLD Supreme Court 787
- NIAZ AHMED (deceased) through legal heirs and another vs DEPUTY 2005 SCMR 248
- ALI MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs and others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT 2001 SCMR 1822
- GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through AdvocateGeneral vs BANK OF KHYBER and others 2001 SCMR 1666
- Commissioner of Income Tax and others. Regional Commissioner of Inco_b0471138 PTCL 2007 CL. 1
- Messrs Khurshid Soap And Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Sheikh 2020 PLD Supreme Court 641
- M/s Khurshid Soap & Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd represented through 2020 P SC 1448, 2020 SCP 150