1990 PLP 1309 (SCMR)
JAVAID IQBAL ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1309 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | JAVAID IQBAL ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1309 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1309 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1309 (SCMR) (JAVAID IQBAL ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 15‑5‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Cr. Misc. No. 93‑M of 1989). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 145‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Where a matter stood concluded by exercise of revisional jurisdiction at Sessions Court level, it would be very difficult to make out a case for further interference by High Court under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Strict conditions laid down in S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C. having not been satisfied in the case, petition for leave to appeal merited dismissal on this ground alone. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 145‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑High Court had found Sessions Court's decision unexceptionable on factual aspects‑‑‑High Court had also held that actually dispute between the parties was the subject matter of civil litigation which was pending before Civil Court and that important condition of likelihood of breach of peace which should pre‑exist for taking action under 5.145, Cr.P.C. did not exist in the case‑‑‑Decisions of Sessions Court and High Court were found unexceptionable‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. A learned Magistrate held in favour of the petitioner that he had been dispossessed within two months of the relevant date. The learned Sessions Court reversed this finding in its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner then finding no other remedy sought interference under section 561‑A Cr.P.C. by the High Court: In such case where a matter stands concluded by the exercise of criminal revisional jurisdiction at the Sessions Court level, it would be very difficult to make out a case for further interference by the High Court under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. The strict conditions laid down therein are not satisfied in this case. Accordingly on this ground alone this petition merits to be dismissed. However, as the High Court did not dismiss the petitioner's application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. on the said ground and dealt with the merits, we heard the learned counsel on that aspect of the case. It has been found as a fact by the learned Judge in the High Court that the decision on factual aspects rendered by the Sessions Court was unexceptionable. It was also held that the dispute between the parties in reality was the subject‑matter of civil litigation and that the same was pending before the Civil Court. Further it was held that important condition; namely, that there should be likelihood of breach of peace which should pre‑exist for taking action under the said provision, did not exist in this case. After hearing the learned counsel in support of the points raised in this petition we find the decision of the Sessions Court and impugned judgment rendered by the High Court are unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. N.H.Q./J‑69/S Leave refused.