1993 PLP 417 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS SULERI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 417 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (A J & K) |
| Bench Members | Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ. and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS SULERI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 417 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 417 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (A J & K) bench comprising: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ. and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 417 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS SULERI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, Advocate for Appellants.
- Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.l and 2.
- Sardar Khan, Advocate‑General for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal. from the judgment and order of the High Court dated 18‑4‑1992, in Writ Petition No.105 of 1991). (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 42 & 47‑‑‑Expunction of a portion of judgment of High Court‑‑‑Matter before High Court wherein certain remarks were passed against appellants (officials) related to terms and conditions of service‑‑‑High Court although dismissed Constitutional petition on the ground that such matter could not be adjudicated upon in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction and that same fell within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal yet passed remarks that interpretation of judgments of superior Courts adopted by appellants (officials) was whimsical which eroded the authority of the Courts and that clarification submitted by such officials was in evasive and loathsome manner‑‑‑High Court having no jurisdiction to decide the case and even otherwise when it was found that Constitutional petition was premature then there was no justification in law to discuss merit of the case‑‑‑Courts should not enter into an exercise of futility nor in an exercise which was purely academic in nature‑‑ While resolving disputes, Court should determine the rights and liabilities of parties before it and dispense justice in a concrete shape=‑‑High Court thus, should not have recorded remarks against appellants (officials) irrespective of the fact whether the same were factually or legally correct or not‑‑‑Specific portions of the judgment wherein adverse remarks had been passed against appellants (officials) were ordered to be expunged.‑‑[Expunction of remarks]. (b) Administration of justice‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Courts should not enter into an exercise in futility nor in an exercise which is purely academic in nature‑‑‑Courts while resolving disputes brought before it should determine rights and liabilities of parties and dispense justice in a concrete shape.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal. from the judgment and order of the High Court dated 18‑4‑1992, in Writ Petition No.105 of 1991). (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 42 & 47‑‑‑Expunction of a portion of judgment of High Court‑‑‑Matter before High Court wherein certain remarks were passed against appellants (officials) related to terms and conditions of service‑‑‑High Court although dismissed Constitutional petition on the ground that such matter could not be adjudicated upon in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction and that same fell within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal yet passed remarks that interpretation of judgments of superior Courts adopted by appellants (officials) was whimsical which eroded the authority of the Courts and that clarification submitted by such officials was in evasive and loathsome manner‑‑‑High Court having no jurisdiction to decide the case and even otherwise when it was found that Constitutional petition was premature then there was no justification in law to discuss merit of the case‑‑‑Courts should not enter into an exercise of futility nor in an exercise which was purely academic in nature‑‑ While resolving disputes, Court should determine the rights and liabilities of parties before it and dispense justice in a concrete shape=‑‑High Court thus, should not have recorded remarks against appellants (officials) irrespective of the fact whether the same were factually or legally correct or not‑‑‑Specific portions of the judgment wherein adverse remarks had been passed against appellants (officials) were ordered to be expunged.‑‑[Expunction of remarks]. (b) Administration of justice‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Courts should not enter into an exercise in futility nor in an exercise which is purely academic in nature‑‑‑Courts while resolving disputes brought before it should determine rights and liabilities of parties and dispense justice in a concrete shape. Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, Advocate for Appellants. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.l and
2. Sardar Khan, Advocate‑General for Respondent No.