Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 970

MUHAMMAD KHAN And 6 Others vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA And 12 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 970
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.543/1990 W.P. No.315 of 1990
Date1990-11-10
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry
Authored byAbdul Qadeer Chaudhry
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the High Court dated 29-07-1990. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration and possession, during which the petitioners sought to amend their written statement under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. The trial court disallowed the amendment application, and the subsequent revision petition was dismissed by the District Judge. The petitioners challenged these orders via a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on the ground that a revisional order arising out of civil litigation cannot be challenged through a writ petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the order was legal, proper, and raised no point of law. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The judgment reiterates the established principle that orders passed in civil revision proceedings by competent courts cannot be assailed or reopened by invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a revisional order arising out of civil litigation be challenged through a writ petition in the High Court?
  • Whether an order disallowing an application under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. upheld in revision can be assailed under constitutional jurisdiction?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.
amendment of written statementconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionrevisional ordercivil litigationleave to appeal

ORDER

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appear is sought against the order of the High Court dated 29-7-.1990.

The facts, in brief, are that the respondents 1 to 7 filed a suit for declaration and possession against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 8 to 11. The petitioners moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Seeking permission to amend the written statement. The trial Court vide Order dated 29-3-1989 disallowed the application for amendment. The petitioners' Revision Petition against the said order was dismissed by the District Judge on 17-1-1990. The petitioners then challenged the two orders in a Constitution Petition in the High Court. The petition was dismissed. The learned High Court observed that a revisional order arising out of civil litigation could not be challenged in the Writ Petition and relied upon Ghulam Hussain v. Malik Shahbaz Khan 1985 SCMR 1925; Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ghulam Hussain 1989 SCMR 443 and Muhammad Zahoor v. Lal Muhammad 1988 SCMR 322.

3. The order' of the High Court in the circumstances is not open to challenge on any legal ground.

The order was legal and proper. No point of law is involved in this petition. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 43 cases

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