PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Through MANAGING DIRECTOR, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR QURESHI And 4 Other
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the Punjab Road Transport Corporation challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal following a concession made by the petitioner's counsel that the establishment had been wound up and all employee services terminated. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that the legal question resolved by the High Court would have wider repercussions on other pending cases involving different employees, potentially causing financial losses. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner did not claim its counsel lacked the authority to make the concession. Furthermore, the Court held that the impugned judgment was based on a concession in an individual case and constituted a judgment in personam. Consequently, the Court ruled that the judgment would not bind the petitioner in future litigation with other parties, which would be decided on their own merits. Leave to appeal was refused as the petition was found to be without merit.
- Can a party challenge a judgment based on a concession made by their counsel without alleging that the counsel exceeded their authority?
- Does a judgment based on a concession in an individual case constitute a binding precedent for future litigation involving different parties?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the underlying judgment was based on a concession made by the petitioner's own counsel?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J. - Through this petition under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner/Punjab Board Transport Corporation has laid challenge to the following order passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in I.C.A. No. 521 of 1997 on 28.10.1997:- "Malik M. Rasheed Awan, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Raza Hussain Shamsi, Advocate on behalf of Munawar Qureshi, respondent No. 1.
"Learned counsel concedes that establishment of the appellant has since been wound up and service (s) of all employees have been terminated. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs."
2. According to Mr. Ahmed Awais, learned Advocate Supreme Court, the then learned counsel for the petitioner did not state that even after the winding up of the petitioner-Board and the termination of services of all the employees, the instant list would automatically cease to remain current. The precise contention was that the question of law resolved by the learned Judge in Chambers, while allowing writ petition of respondent No. 5 Muhammad Munawar Qureshi will have greater repercussions on the cases of many other employees of the petitioner-Board and the impugned judgment having upheld the judgment dated 30.4.1997 of the learned Judge in Chamber, the petitioner-Board will suffer heavy losses at the instance of all those who would choose to rely upon the same, in terms of the impugned judgment in I.C.A. No. 521 of 1997. We are afraid the plea being raised in support of this petition is of little help to the petitioner. It was the then learned counsel for the Board who made the concession recorded in the impugned judgment.
It is not the case of the petitioner that their learned counsel transgressed the limits of the power- of-attorney while stating as above before the learned Division Bench of the High Court. Moreover, the impugned judgment is based upon concession in an individual case. The same being a judgment in personam the causes of the petitioner-Board in relation to any other litigation surfacing itself in future between other parties and the petitioner-Board will, it is not denied by the petitioner, be decided on its/their own merits.
3. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed as such.
Order accordingly. Leave is refused.