1968 SCMR 94 (PLP)
IALAL-UD-DIN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus Mst. NOOK RAIN AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 94 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | IALAL-UD-DIN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus Mst. NOOK RAIN AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 94 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 94 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 94 (PLP) (IALAL-UD-DIN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus Mst. NOOK RAIN AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdur Rahim Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Petitioners. (In both the Petitions).
- Abdus Salam, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Respondents, (In both the Petitions),
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th July 1967, in Settlement Revisions Nos. 16 and 18 respectively of 1963). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Question whether High Court justified hi invoking writ jurisdiction in favour of party who had other remedy open but failed to avail of it in time--Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-This order relates to two separate petitions No. 344 of 1967 by Jalal-ud-Din against Mst. Noor Sain and others and No. 345 of 1967 by Jalal-ud-Din against Shamas-ud Din and others, seeking special leave to appeal against the same judgment of the High Court, delivered in two matters, moved by the respondents to these petitions as Settlement revisions under section 31 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which were allowed by the High Court to be converted into writ petitions, as they were liable to dismissal qua revisions, through being barred by time, and condonation of the delay not being possible under the law. A number of grounds of objection to the judgment of the High Court are raised. One which stands out raises the question whether the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts by Article 98 can be used for the benefit of a party which had a clear remedy under the relevant law, but has forfeited that remedy through its own default. The law seems to intend that absolute finality shall attach to the last order in Settlement unless a revision is sought in the High Court within the prescribed period of limitation, which is by no means short, viz., 60 days. If report is allowed to the writ jurisdiction, it can only be in defeat of that law, and there are no words in Article 98 which, can justify its use to such an end. We grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security--Rs. 1,000 in each case. Action in Settlement in pursuance of the' judgment of the High Court is stayed pending disposal of the appeal. Petition allowed.