Pakistan Case Law
1994 SCMR 510

FEDERAL GOVERENMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Minority

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1994 SCMR 510
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 780-L of 1992 W.P. No, 948-R/1977
Date1993-11-23
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar
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, wherein the Federal Government of Pakistan sought leave to examine legal questions regarding the finality of determinative orders that were not subjected to appeal or objection, as well as the scope of suo motu revision powers in the presence of a time-barred application. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these core questions. Additionally, the Court issued an interim directive ordering that no alienation, damage, or depreciation in the value of the disputed property shall occur in the meantime. The judgment underscores the legal implications of failing to challenge determinative orders and the procedural parameters governing revisional powers.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether determinative orders that are not objected to or appealed against attain finality?
  • Can suo motu powers of revision be exercised in the presence of a time-barred application by a party to the proceedings?
leave to appealsuo motu revisionfinality of orderstime-barred applicationproperty dispute

ORDER

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal is granted to examine, inter alia, whether some of the determinative orders having not been objected to or appealed against, had not attained finality.

Reliance is placed on Samad Khan v. Khalid Khan (1985 SCM R 770) and Muhammad Swaleh v.

United Grain & Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97).

2. As for powers of suo motu revision even in presence of a time-barred application by a party to the proceedings, reliance is placed on Ch. Jalal v. Board of Revenue, Sindh (1982 CLC 2020).

3. No alienation, damage or depreciation in value of the disputed property meanwhile.

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