SULTAN IBRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT And Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the plaintiff side against the High Court's decision to accept the respondents' Regular Second Appeal in a dispute concerning inheritance and the challenge to an alienation. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but the petitioner's first appeal was allowed. During the pendency of the second appeal before the High Court, the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 was promulgated. The High Court subsequently allowed the respondents' appeal by giving effect to Section 2-A of the newly enforced Ordinance. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel conceded that in light of Section 2-A and the Supreme Court's binding precedent in Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Shafi, the petitioner had no viable case to press. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that statutory changes under Section 2-A must be given full legal effect in pending inheritance and alienation disputes.
- What is the legal effect of Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 on a pending second appeal challenging an alienation?
- Can a party successfully press an appeal when subsequent statutory amendments under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 extinguish their claim?
- Section 2-A, West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff side against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents' Regular Second Appeal in a usual case of inheritance and challenge to an alienation.
2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner's first appeal, however, was allowed. Before the decision of the Second Appeal filed by the respondent's side before the High Court, West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, was enforced.
3. Accordingly giving effect to section 2-A of the said Ordinance, the respondents' appeal was allowed on account of the said change of law.
4. Learned counsel states that in view of the provisions contained in section 2-A, he has now practically no case to press. Moreover, this Court also gave effect to section 2-A in a recent judgment Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1985 SC 407. Learned counsel admits that the said judgment also goes against him. Accordingly this petition fails and leave to appeal is refused.