MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs MUHAMMAD FAZAL
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded an ejectment matter to the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, for a fresh decision. The original ejectment application, filed by the respondent on grounds including default in rent, impairment of property value, personal requirement, and reconstruction, was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. In the subsequent writ petition, the respondent pressed only the ground of reconstruction. The High Court remanded the entire appeal for a fresh decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the entire case when only the ground of reconstruction was argued before it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in remanding the entire matter. The ratio established is that where a party limits its arguments in a writ petition to a specific ground, the court's scope of remand should be restricted to that specific ground rather than reopening the entire case. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, restricting the remand solely to the re-hearing of the appeal regarding the ground of reconstruction.
- Whether a High Court is justified in remanding an entire case when only one specific ground was pressed during the writ proceedings?
- Can a court restrict the scope of a remand order to the specific legal grounds argued before it?
' AJMAL MIAN, J. This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 5-12-1992 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No, 4134 of 1989 filed by the respondent against the concurrent judgment dated 27-74987 and 5-2-1989 of the learned Rent Controller, Kharian, and of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, in Ejectment 'Application No,11 of 1985 and Civil Appeal No 266 of 1987 respectively, dismissing the appellant's above ejectment application, allowing the same in the following terms:-- "For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, and shall be decided afresh.
' As the ejectment petition out of which this petition has arisen was filed as far back as 1983, it is directed that the appeal shall be decided before 31st January, 1993 positively. This direction shall be reported to the Registrar of this Court There shall be no orders as to costs."
2. The brief facts are that the respondent filed the aforesaid ejectment application on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period commencing October, 1981, impairing the value of the suit shop personal requirement and reconstruction. The above application was resisted by the appellant, inasmuch as a written statement was filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed seven Issues. After recording evidence and hearing the. Parties, he decided all the Issues against the respondent and dismissed the application. His aforementioned civil appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District judge, Gujrat.- Thereupon, the respondent filed the above writ petition, which was allowed in the above terms.
' Thereupon, the appellant filed a petition for leave was to, appeal, which w granted to consider, whether the learned Judge in chambers was justified in remanding the case in the above terms though before him ]he only, ground which was urged by the respondent was reconstruction.
3. The above matter was taken up today. No one appeared for the appellant. However, we have heard Mian Sher Alam, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent.
4. We have perused the record including the judgments of the Courts below. It seems to be true that the respondent before the learned Judge in Chambers in the aforesaid writ petition pressed only one ground, namely, of reconstruction. The learned Judge in Chambers was of the view that the learned Additional District Judge, instead, of dilating upon the above ground and applying his mind independently, adopted more or less in verbatim the reasons found favor with the learned Rent Controller while declining the above ground. Since only the ground of reconstruction was pressed before the learned Judge in Chambers, we are of the view that the above case could not have been remanded to the learned Additional District Judge in the above terms. We would, therefore, allow the above appeal and would modify the judgment under appeal to the extent that the case is remanded only for re-hearing of the appeal on the ground of reconstruction. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. However, we may observe that since the matter is pending for quite long period, the learned Additional District Judge shall make efforts to decide the appeal as early as possible.