Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 1667

Syed ABID ALI And Others vs Syed HABIB UR REHMAN Through His Legal Heirs

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 1667
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.154 of 1987
Date1990-01-28
Judge(s)Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa
Authored byAbdul Shakurul Salam
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal against a decision where remand proceedings relied upon a previous order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 10-10-1966. The petitioners argued that the High Court had earlier observed that the said order was passed without notice to them and was not binding, and therefore could not be relied upon in the remand proceedings. The core legal question concerns the binding effect of an order previously declared by the High Court to have been passed without notice and whether such an order can be utilized in subsequent remand proceedings. The court held that the contention raised requires consideration and granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the court ordered that status quo shall be maintained while the appeal is processed on the existing record with permission to file additional documents.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can an order previously held by the High Court to be without notice and non-binding on a party be relied upon in subsequent remand proceedings?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when remand proceedings rely on an order passed without notice?
leave to appealremand proceedingsnatural justicenoticesettlement proceedingsstatus quo

ORDER

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Leave is sought on the ground that on an earlier revision of the petitioners, tile High Court had observed that the order dated 10-10-196,6 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was without notice to the petitioners and as such not binding on them; but in the remand proceedings the same order has been relied upon and made binding on the petitioners. It is submitted that that could not be done.

2. Contention raised requires consideration. Leave is granted. Security in the sum of Rs. 5,000.

Status quo shall be maintained. Appeal shall be processed on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if they so choose.

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