AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI And 4 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition. The petitioner had sought to challenge the refusal of a mutation order in a property sale transaction involving allegations of fraud. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative, adequate remedy available, specifically the filing of a civil suit. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel was unable to challenge the High Court's decision to decline the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's approach, noting that the availability of a proper remedy through a civil suit precluded the invocation of writ jurisdiction in such circumstances. Citing established precedent, the Court held that where an adequate alternative remedy exists, constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not a substitute for regular civil litigation.
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained when an adequate alternative remedy, such as a civil suit, is available?
- Is the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court discretionary in matters involving property mutation disputes?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's constitutional petition. It had arisen out of his failure in obtaining a favourable order of mutation. It related to a sale wherein question of fraud was involved. Instead of filing a suit, as it was the proper remedy, he filed a writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of availability of the other adequate remedy.
2. Learned counsel could not urge anything against the approach of the High Court in its refusal to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in this matter. He himself pointed out that Lal and others v.
3. Mian Dad and another' 1968 SCM R 842 (2) supports the view taken by the High Court. That being so, leave to appeal is refused.