2002 PLP 1985 (SCMR)
IMAM BAKHSH and 2 others ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH WASAYA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1985 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | IMAM BAKHSH and 2 others ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH WASAYA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1985 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1985 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1985 (SCMR) (IMAM BAKHSH and 2 others ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH WASAYA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from this Court's judgment dated 6‑11‑2000 in Civil Petition No.963‑L of 2000). Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. XXVI‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 187‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Decision on new ground‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑‑Plea raised by the petitioner was that a ground having not been made basis for dismissal of the suit by the Appellate Court, Supreme Court in the judgment under review should not have maintained the judgment on other ground‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Supreme Court was vested with jurisdiction to do complete justice under Art. 187 of the Constitution and after taking note of a glaring fact on the record i.e. admission by the vendor herself, Supreme Court had passed proper judgment which could legally be passed‑‑‑Supreme Court took no exception to the judgment passed‑‑‑Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
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.
4. Dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./I‑46/S Petition dismissed.