MUHAMMAD WARIS ALI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and subsequent Intra-Court Appeal regarding a dispute over land possession. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly declined to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when a parallel civil suit concerning the same subject matter was already pending before a competent civil court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the High Court was correct in refusing to interfere in the matter through its writ jurisdiction while the civil suit was actively pending. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked when an alternative, appropriate remedy is being pursued in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding no legal error in the High Court's refusal to interfere with the Deputy Commissioner's order regarding the disputed land possession.
- Can the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 when a civil suit on the same subject matter is already pending?
- Is it appropriate for a High Court to dismiss a writ petition in limine when an alternative remedy is being pursued in a civil court?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition is directed against the judgments of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26-6-1998 and 25-8-1998 passed in W.P. No, 1263 of 1998 and I.C.A No, 573 of 1998 respectively.
2. It is not denied that civil suit on the same subject-matter is pending before Mr. Mohsin Abbas, Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, was, therefore, right in declining to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution by dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 17-6-1998. Passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, whereby the possession of the disputed land was directed to be delivered to respondent No,8 herein.
3. The learned Members of the Division Bench of the High Court were right in dismissing the Intra- Court Appeal, filed by the Petitioner in limine on the same ground. Clearly, the impugned orders are based on sound reasons warranting no interference.
4. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 2 cases
- M.C.R. (Pvt) Ltd, franchisee of Pizza Hut vs Multan Development Authority 2021 CLD 639, 2021 [M] C L R 1067, 2021 LHC 731
- M.C.R. (Pvt.) Ltd. Franchisee Of Pizza Hut vs Multan Development Authority 2021 CLD 639