Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1384

ZAKAULLAH and others vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, PAKISTAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1384
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,1369 of 1983
Date1988-08-30
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Saad Saood Jan
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 involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order concerning land commission proceedings. The core legal question addressed by the Court pertains to the procedural consolidation of the instant petition with other pending civil appeals that share identical facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court, noting that the issues in the present case are similar to those in Civil Petitions Nos. 240/R of 1976 and 246/R of 1976, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the petition should be converted into an appeal to ensure it is heard alongside Civil Appeals Nos. 292 and 293 of 1976. The key principle established is that where multiple petitions arise from similar facts and circumstances, judicial efficiency and consistency are best served by consolidating them for a joint hearing, provided the record is adequately prepared with necessary documentation. The Court further directed that the existing stay order remain in effect pending the final adjudication of the consolidated appeals.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal for the purpose of consolidation with similar pending matters?
  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to direct the consolidation of cases sharing identical facts and circumstances?
leave to appealconsolidation of appealsland commissionjudicial efficiencyprocedural order

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Reliance has been placed on the orders granting leave to appeal, dated 13-12-1976 in C.P. 240/R of 1976 and C.P. 246/R of 1976. Both the learned counsel state that the facts and circumstances in this and the aforenoticed cases are similar. Therefore, leave to appeal is also granted in this petition and it is converted into an appeal so as to enable the office to fix it for hearing with the two Civil Appeals Nos.292 and 293 of 1976 arising out of the said petitions. They, according to the learned Additional Advocate-General, were fixed for hearing on 26-6-1988 at Rawalpindi but were not disposed of.

2. ' Security Rs,5,000.

3. ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents.

4. ' Stay to continue.

5. ' To be heard with the aforenoted two appeals.

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