1991 PLP 1893 (SCMR)
MIRWAS KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SECRETARY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1893 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MIRWAS KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SECRETARY and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1893 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1893 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1893 (SCMR) (MIRWAS KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SECRETARY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nur Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1989.
- Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nur Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 14-2-1989, passed in W.P.No.581 of 1986).
S. 12
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Division Bench of High Court, exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction had arrived at a correct conclusion by restoring concurrent findings of fact of two Courts below, based on unanimous report of legally constituted Jirga under the Regulation
Petitioner having failed to point out any defect or irregularity in proceedings before Courts below
Case thus was not fit in which leave to appeal could be granted.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 14‑2‑1989, whereby writ petition of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 against the order dated 23‑9‑1986 of the Addl. Secretary, Govt. of N.‑W.F.P., Home Department, Peshawar was accepted. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 had filed a suit for possession through pre emption of the house in dispute against Amanullah and another, in the Court of EA.C. Daggar under the provisions of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975. The learned EA.C. exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner, under the Regulation referred the suit to a legally constituted Jirga. The Jirga members unanimously made a report in favour of the said respondents upon which the learned EA.C. granted a decree in their favour vide his order dated 13‑12‑1983. Mirwas Khan the present petitioner filed appeal before the learned Addl. Commissioner, Malakand Division which was dismissed on 19‑11‑1985. His revision petition before the learned Addl. Home Secretary was accepted vide order dated 23‑9‑86. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 being aggrieved filed writ petition in the Peshawar High Court. A learned Division Bench of the High Court while accepting the writ petition, set aside the order dated 23‑9‑1986 of the Addl. Secretary Home and restored both the judgments of the learned Addl. Commissioner dated 19‑11‑1985 and that of the EA.C. dated 13‑12‑1983, vide impugned judgment. After hearing both the learned counsel of the parties at length, we are satisfied that the Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court exercising their constitutional jurisdiction have arrived at a correct conclusion by restoring the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below, based on the unanimous report of the legally constituted Jirga under the PA.TA. Regulation. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out before us that the Addl. Secretary Home has shown any defect or irregularity in the proceedings as envisaged by the Provisions of section 12 of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975. We think it is not a fit case in which leave' to appeal could be granted. The petition, accordingly is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1113/S Petition dismissed.