1978 PLP 167 (SCMR)
SHER MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents
| Citation | 1978 PLP 167 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----S.115-Estoppel-Jurisdiction-Person himself invoking jurisdiction of a particular Tribunal-Cannot, on order being passed by such Tribunal, challenge such order as being passed without jurisdiction. Estoppel-Jurisdiction. |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq, C. J., Qaisar Khan and Ghulam Safdar Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 167 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 167 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----S.115-Estoppel-Jurisdiction-Person himself invoking jurisdiction of a particular Tribunal-Cannot, on order being passed by such Tribunal, challenge such order as being passed without jurisdiction. Estoppel-Jurisdiction. bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, C. J., Qaisar Khan and Ghulam Safdar Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 167 (SCMR) (SHER MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing r let February 1978.
- Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- The only contention raised by Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate for the petitioner was that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdic tion to pass the order dated 16-6‑1977 and that the order was therefore a nullity. For this he placed reliance on the authority reported in P L D 1964 S C 129. This authority, however, does not help him for he himself had invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court was justified in not exercising its writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. No fault could be found with the order of the High Court and since substantial justice has been done this petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W. P. No. 1054-R of 1977).
S.115-Estoppel-Jurisdiction-Person himself invoking jurisdiction of a particular Tribunal-Cannot, on order being passed by such Tribunal, challenge such order as being passed without jurisdiction. [Estoppel-Jurisdiction]. P L D 1964 S C 129 (?) held not applicable.
Judgment & Decree
S.115‑Estoppel‑Jurisdiction‑Person himself invoking jurisdiction of a particular Tribunal‑Cannot, on order being passed by such Tribunal, challenge such order as being passed without jurisdiction. [Estoppel‑Jurisdiction]. P L D 1964 S C 129 (?) held not applicable. Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing r let February 1978. QAISAR KHAN, J.‑Evacuee House No. AA/1385 situated in Mohallah Akalgarh, Rawalpindi was transferred jointly to Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saddiq. Final Transfer Order was issued on 13-9‑76. Close to this house was an evacuee plot. This plot was included in the auction list in 1962 and it was purchased in auction by one Munir Ahmad who later on surrendered his right in favour of Mst. Sharifan Begum. The plot was in occupation of Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saddiq. Mst. Sharifan Begum therefore served them with a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saddiq claiming the plot to be a part of their house approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for clarification. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 16‑6‑77 held that the plot which measured 4 marlas, 2 sarsais was a separate plot belonging to Teja Singh while house measuring 1152 sq. ft. was a separate property belonging to one Gokal Chand and that Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saddiq after obtaining transfer of the house had taken illegal possession of the plot. Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Sadiq questioned the aforesaid order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner by a writ petition in the High Court but their writ petition was dismissed on 6‑8‑1977. They have thus filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court. The only contention raised by Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate for the petitioner was that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdic tion to pass the order dated 16-6‑1977 and that the order was therefore a nullity. For this he placed reliance on the authority reported in P L D 1964 S C 129. This authority, however, does not help him for he himself had invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court was justified in not exercising its writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. No fault could be found with the order of the High Court and since substantial justice has been done this petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.