Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 1860

Sheikh HAFEEZ UR REHMAN And Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 1860
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.812 and 814 of 1985
Date1989-10-29
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Nasim Hasan Shah
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated from petitions filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge an order of remand issued by the High Court. While these petitions were pending before the Supreme Court, the Notified Officer to whom the matter had been remanded proceeded to dispose of the case on its merits. The Notified Officer ultimately decided the matter in favour of the present petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court observed that the primary relief sought in the petitions had been rendered infructuous due to the subsequent developments in the proceedings before the Notified Officer. Counsel for the petitioners requested that their right to revive the petitions be preserved, noting that the opponents were challenging the Notified Officer's decision through separate writ proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as having become infructuous, while explicitly granting the petitioners liberty to revive the petitions should the need arise in the future, particularly in light of the ongoing litigation initiated by the opponents against the Notified Officer's order.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a petition be dismissed as infructuous if the underlying grievance has been resolved by a lower authority during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to grant liberty to revive a dismissed petition if subsequent legal challenges arise?
infructuous petitionremand orderwrit jurisdictioncivil procedurerevival of petition

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: --By these petitions the petitioners sought to impeach the order of remand passed by the High Court. During the pendency of these petitions the notified officer has disposed of the matter sent to him on record anddecided the same in favour of the present petitioner rendering these petitions before us infructuous.

2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in so far as the opponents are again questioning the orders passed by the Notified Officer through writ petition, his right to review the present petitions, if the need ever arises, may be preserved.

3. These petitions are dismissed with leave to the petitioners to revive these petitions if necessary.

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