Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 539

Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs MUHAMMAD JAMEEL and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 539
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 771 of 1981
Date1988-07-17
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal
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 originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Settlement Authorities challenging an order of the High Court. The High Court had disposed of a writ petition filed by the respondents in a manner that granted them significant relief without formally accepting the petition or providing adequate justification. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order and observed that the method of disposal employed by the High Court appeared inconsistent with established judicial practice, particularly concerning matters of vital importance to the involved parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, converting the petition into an appeal. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared based on the existing record, with liberty granted to the parties to file any necessary additional documents. The matter was subsequently fixed for a full hearing to address the procedural irregularities and the substantive merits of the relief granted by the High Court, thereby ensuring that the disposal of the writ petition adhered to proper legal standards and judicial procedure.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the disposal of a writ petition without formally accepting it, while granting relief, constitute a valid judicial order?
  • Is it procedurally correct for a High Court to grant major relief in a writ petition without providing justification?
writ petitionleave to appealjudicial proceduredisposal of petitionsettlement authorities

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the Settlement Authorities against the "disposal" of a writ petition filed by the respondents' side, with the effect that without. "accepting" the petition, major relief has been allowed to them prima facie, without justification.

2. After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that the "disposal" of the writ petition by the impugned order is prima fade not in accordance with the normal practice of the High Court, when dealing with questions of vital importance to the parties concerned. This petition accordingly is converted into an appeal and fixed for hearing in October, 1988.

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

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