Pakistan Case Law
1998 SCMR 665

MAULA BAKHSH vs AMANULLAH and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1998 SCMR 665
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 825 of 1997
Date1998-01-13
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan and Munir A. Sheikh
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a judgment rendered by the High Court. The core legal questions presented for consideration concern the jurisdictional competence of the Civil Court to entertain the subject suit and the propriety of the High Court's interference with concurrent findings of fact previously established by the Trial Courts and the Revenue Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court was legally justified in disturbing these concurrent findings under the specific facts and circumstances of the case. As this is an order granting leave to appeal, the final adjudication on the merits of the dispute, the scope of revisional powers, and the jurisdictional boundaries between Civil and Revenue Courts remains pending for the final hearing of the appeal. The Court's decision at this stage is limited to identifying these substantial questions of law for further deliberation.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question?
  • Is the High Court justified in disturbing concurrent findings of the Trial Courts and the Revenue Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction?
leave to appealcivil court jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsrevenue court

ORDER

1. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the High Court was justified in disturbing concurrent findings of the Trial Courts below as well as the Revenue Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

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