Pakistan Case Law
1999 SCMR 1317

MUMTAZ AHMAD vs S.H.O,, POLICE STATION SADDAR, RAHIMYAR KHAN and.

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1999 SCMR 1317
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos.956 and 957-L of 1997 Writ Petition No,32 of 1996 C.P. No,
Date1998-06-06
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif
Authored byIrshad Hasan Khan
ResultPetition allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

These civil petitions arose from a consolidated judgment of the High Court where the petitioner sought the expunction of adverse remarks made against him by a learned Single Judge in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment. The petitioner contended that the observations, which characterized him as a "clever person" with a "long criminal history" and a "black-sheep" who disregarded Islamic injunctions and national laws, were prejudicial and unwarranted. The Supreme Court, with the concession of the learned Additional Advocate-General, examined whether the adverse remarks were relevant to the determination of the actual controversy. The Court held that the observations made against the petitioner were uncalled for and irrelevant to the resolution of the core dispute. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, and ordered the expunction of the impugned remarks from the record, setting aside the High Court's judgment to that extent.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether adverse personal observations made by a judge against a party that are irrelevant to the actual controversy can be expunged by an appellate court?
  • What is the effect of an Intra-Court Appeal on the observations made by a Single Judge in Chambers when the order merges into the appeal?
expunction of remarksadverse observationsuncalled for remarksjudicial restraintcivil petition

ORDER

' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Through this common order we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.956 and 957-L of 1997, arising out of a consolidated judgment passed in Writ Petition No,32 of 1996 dated 26-1-1997.

2. The grievance of the petitioner relates to some observations contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, which has been merged in the order passed in Intra-Court Appeal. The observation sought to be expunged read thus:- ' Bashir Ahmed claimed today in the open Court that all this was done by Mumtaz Ahmad, who is a very clever person and has a long criminal history and who is already married and has children.

Without commenting on what he has stated, I cannot help observing that it is a very sad state of affairs that in our society such black-sheep are also in abundance. He cared little about the Injunction of Islam with regard to Iddat nor did he have any regard for the laws of the land and continued playing foul and trickeries one after the other."

3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, present in Court, has been issued notice. He sought some time to study the case and request it to be taken up after interval.

4. We have again taken up the case. The learned Additional Advocate-General frankly conceded that in the facts and circumstances of the case the observations made against the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment were uncalled for and were not relevant for deciding the real controversy arising in the case. We are also inclined to agree with him.

5. Resultantly, we convert these petitions into appeals and allow them. The impugned observations are expunged. The order of the learned Judge in Chambers having been merged in order of Intra- Court Appeal is set aside to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

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