BASHIR Alias SARWAR And Another vs FATEH MUHAMMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the possession of land, while a related civil petition involving the title to the same land was already pending before the Supreme Court. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the success of the petitioners in the connected appeal regarding title would react upon and impact the present case concerning possession, thereby necessitating an examination of the merits of both matters. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine the interlinked controversy between the parties. The court further condoned the delay in filing the petition, exempted the petitioners from depositing separate security for costs in view of their indigent circumstances, and directed that both related matters be heard together.
- Will the success of a party in an appeal concerning land title react upon a connected case regarding possession of the same land?
- Can the Supreme Court condone delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal based on the grounds stated in an application?
- Whether separate security for costs needs to be deposited when a related matter between the same parties already has security ordered?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---After hearing both the learned counsel we while condoning the delay in filing of this petition on the grounds stated in the application in that behalf, consider it proper to examine amongst others the following questions.
2. Civil Petition No.762 of 1979, leave wherein was granted on 22-3-1986, raises the same controversy between the parties as is involved in this petition. The only difference being that the said case related to title while the present one, as asserted by the learned counsel for the caveator, relates to possesstion of the same land. The question requiring examination would be in case the petitioners succeed in the said appeal will this success not react on the present case. In that context the merits of the present case would also need examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted.
3. Learned counsel states that the petitioners are almost destitutes. He has not charged any fee and that the expenses partly have also been incurred by him and further that security for costs was ordered in the above-referred case. Accordingly separate security need not be deposited in this case. Both matters shall be heard together.