Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 1890

ASGHAR ALI And 15 Others vs S.C.O. CIRCLE CANAL, BAHAWALNAGAR And 6

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 1890
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.659 & 660 of 1988
Date1989-08-20
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah
ResultPetitions dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners filed petitions that were found to be barred by time and thus liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in a similar prior case regarding an interim order in connection with Warabandi under the Canal and Drainage Act, the Court had issued directions for fair treatment in canal water supply based on an undertaking by the canal authorities. Although no such undertaking existed in the present case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan noted that the right to justice and fair treatment is a recognized basic human right in Islamic dispensation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions as time-barred while observing that the petitioners must be dealt with fairly and in accordance with justice during the pendency of the ongoing litigation. The core legal question concerned the treatment of time-barred petitions seeking interim relief regarding canal water supply, and the holding affirmed the dismissal on limitation grounds while emphasizing fundamental principles of fairness.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Are petitions that are barred by time liable to be dismissed?
  • Does Islamic dispensation recognize the right to justice and fair treatment as a basic human right?
  • Can directions for fair treatment in canal water supply be issued in the absence of an undertaking by canal authorities?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Canal and Drainage Act
time-barred petitionsWarabandicanal water supplyfundamental rightsfair treatmentinterim order

ORDER

1. These petitions are barred by time and are liable to be dismissed accordingly. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that in another similar case relating to interim order in connection with Warabandi under the Canal and Drainage Act, while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal, the Court had on the undertaking of the Canal Authorities given certain directions for the fair treatment to the petitioners therein, in the supply of the canal water. As a temporary measure, There is no such undertaking in this case. However, right to justice and fair treatment is recognized as basic human right m Islamic dispensation. We in this case, observe that during the pendency of the litigation the petitioners shall be dealt with fairly and in accordance with justice.

2. These petitions, accordingly, with the foregoing observation are dismissed.

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