Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1621

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD TAYYAB and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1621
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.200-R to 226-R of 1988
Date1989-05-21
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

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.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • 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?
leave to appealconsolidation of appealscondonation of delayappellate procedureSupreme Court practice

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

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