Pakistan Case Law
← Search
1995 SCMR 156
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

KHALID ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus Mrs. FAHMIDA MALIK and 3 others

Civil Petition No, 1000-L of 1993, decided on 11th January, 1994.
Authored by Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui. Result: Leave refused.
⭐ Prefer in Google
Summary

This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order passed by a Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, which had directed that an execution application be fixed for hearing on a specific date with the consent of all counsel, while also stipulating that no further adjournments would be granted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's procedural order fixing a date for the hearing of an execution application and denying further adjournments suffered from any legal infirmity or illegality. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was unable to demonstrate any error, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. The court affirmed the High Court's discretion in managing its own docket and ensuring the expeditious disposal of execution proceedings. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with routine procedural orders of the High Court unless a clear legal error is established.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's procedural order fixing a date for the hearing of an execution application?
  • Does a High Court have the authority to refuse further adjournments in an execution application?
leave to appealexecution applicationprocedural orderadjournmentHigh Court discretion

ORDER

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court dated 14-7-1993 whereby the learned Judge while disposing of C.M. No,100-B/93 directed that the execution application pending before him be fixed for hearing on 21-7-1993 which date has been fixed with the consent of all the counsel with further direction that no further adjournment will be allowed in the case.

2.We have heard Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This petition has no merit which is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

Judges on this bench

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