Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL RASHID VS Respondent: SAKHI MUHAMMADHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1986 S C M R 304
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ
ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
SAKHI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1257 of 1980, decided on 8th September, 1985.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16‑8‑1980, passed in 1. C.A. No 482 of 1980).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Remand order by High Court challenged before Letters Patent Bench‑‑Plea that there being enough material on record, High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction should have decided case on merits, repelled‑ Held, even if two courses were open to High Court, adoption of course which resulted in remand order in circumstances of case suffered from no infirmity, legal or otherwise‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th September, 1985.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 16‑8‑1980 of Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Intra Court Appeal arising out of a remand order passed by a learned Single Judge in a land settlement case, was dismissed.
2. The only plea raised by the learned counsel in the High Court was that instead of remanding the case, the learned Judge should have in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction decided the case on merits; as there was enough material including fresh evidence recorded in the High Court. He also expressed the apprehension that a party to the proceedings, on account of the proceedings after remand would have opportunity of resiling from his previous position, which was favourable to the petitioners.
3. All these points were noted by the Letter's Patent Bench and, the approach of the learned Judge was approved. There is nothing illegal in it. Even if two courses were open to the High Court, in the circumstances of the case, the adoption of the course which resulted in the remand order suffers from no infirmity, legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal is refused.
M.I. Leave refused.