IMAM BAKHSH and 2 others vs ALLAH WASAYA and 2 others
This matter arose from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a revision petition concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court, while reviewing a judgment, could maintain the dismissal of a suit on an additional ground apparent from the record—specifically, that the suit was collusive and filed for the benefit of the vendor—even if that specific ground was not utilized by the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken to the judgment under review, deciding that the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to do complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution and can take note of glaring facts on the record, such as the vendor's admission of financing the litigation, to pass a proper judgment. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court possesses the inherent constitutional authority to ensure complete justice by upholding a valid legal outcome based on undeniable evidence present on the judicial record.
- Can the Supreme Court maintain the dismissal of a suit on a ground not relied upon by the First Appellate Court?
- Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to do complete justice by taking note of glaring facts on the record under Article 187 of the Constitution?
- Is a pre-emption suit liable to be dismissed if it is found to be collusive and financed by the vendor?
- Article 187, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This Court after taking note that Mst. Jannat Bibi vendor appeared as witness and stated that she provided the financial assistance to her son plaintiff to file the suit, came to the conclusion that the suit was collusive and it had been filed for the 'benefit of vendor, therefore, revision petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground and the judgment of the First Appellate Court of dismissal of the suit on the ground of partial pre-emption was maintained on this ground also.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said ground having not been made the basis for dismissal of the suit by First Appellate Court, therefore, this Court in the judgment under review should not have maintained the said judgment on other ground.
3. Argument has no force. This Court is vested within jurisdiction to do complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution and after taking note of a glaring fact on the record i.e, admission by the vendor herself this Court passed proper judgment which could legally be passed as such, no exception can be taken.
Cited by 4 cases
- Mst. Maryam D/o (Late) Dr. Fazlullah Yousufani vs Muhammad Ayub Jatoi 2023 SHC 646
- The State through Director General FIA, Islamabad vs Alif Rehman 2021 CLD 472, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 73, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 473, 2021 SCMR 503,
- Martin Dow Marker Ltd., Quetta and others vs Asadullah Khan and others 2021 PLC 67, 2021 P SC 1111, 2020 SCP 210, 2020 SCMR 2147
- Martin Dow Marker Ltd., Quetta vs Asadullah Khan & others 2020 SCP 210