Pakistan Case Law
1970 SCMR 69

MANGLI vs Mst. SUHAGI AND Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1970 SCMR 69
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 382 of 1967 Writ Petition No.
Date1967-10-25
Judge(s)A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman
Authored byS. A. Rahman
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had previously pursued the matter through a civil suit up to the second appeal stage. The core legal question is whether a writ petition is barred when the prior civil suit failed solely due to a lack of civil court jurisdiction rather than on the merits. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view that no writ petition could be entertained in such circumstances was open to grave question, as the suit was not dismissed on merits. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter, laying down the principle that the dismissal of a civil suit on jurisdictional grounds does not necessarily preclude the entertaining of a constitutional writ petition.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the dismissal of a civil suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction bar a subsequent writ petition?
  • Can a writ petition be entertained when the petitioner previously agitated the matter in civil courts up to a second appeal?
leave to appealwrit petitionjurisdiction of civil courtsalternative remedyres judicata

ORDER

1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal is granted in this case to consider the contention raised on behalf of Mangla the petitioner, that the High Court committed an error in rejecting the petition for a writ, merely on the ground that the petitioner had previously agitated the matter by way of a suit, and had failed in that suit right up to the stage of second appeal in the High Court. It is pointed out by Mr. Gul Muhammad, on behalf of the petitioner, that the suit failed not on the merits, but on the ground that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the circumstances the learned Counsel contended with force, that the view that prevailed in the High Court that no writ petition could be entertained in the circumstances, was open to grave question.

2. The point is of general importance and merits consideration.

3. We grant leave to appeal as prayed. The petitioner will furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,003 for costs prior to the appeal being set down for hearing.

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