1998 PLP 106 (SCMR)
Rana ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., C.B.C. F.I.A., MULTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 106 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Rana ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., C.B.C. F.I.A., MULTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I, of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 106 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I, of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 106 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 106 (SCMR) (Rana ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., C.B.C. F.I.A., MULTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1997.
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 6‑5‑1996 of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench passed in I.C.A. No.44 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution seeking registration of case against respondents was disposed of with observation that petitioner having already moved application to Federal Investigating Agency, could approach concerned Inquiry Officer and get the matter inquired if he was‑ so advised‑‑‑Division Bench of High Court in Intra Court Appeal while dismissing same opined that if contractual obligations were allowed to be enforced through filing of Constitutional petitions, Specific Relief Act, 1877 would become redundant; that Courts would not assume functions of determination of disputed facts‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Proceedings on petitioner's complaint before Federal Investigating Agency were pending when he filed Constitutional petition which was rightly disposed of by Single Judge of High Court with direction that he might approach Inquiry Officer in Federal Investigating Agency and get such matter inquired into‑‑‑Inquiry conducted by Agency having been completed by now, petitioner should better avail result of that inquiry‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances. Sher Zaman Khan, D.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 6-5-1996 dismissing the petitioner's appeal (I.C.A. No.44 of 1996) directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 10-4-1996 whereby petitioner's request for registration of a case against the respondents/officials of Small Business Finance Corporation was declined with the observation that the petitioner having already moved an application to the Federal Investigating Agency "may approach the concerned Inquiry Officer and got the matter inquired if he is so advised. " Feeling aggrieved, petitioner took the matter in appeal (I.C.A. No.44 of 1996) which, as stated above, has been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court vide order dated 6-5-1996 holding that "The amount of finance if at all sanctioned in the sum of Rs.3 lacs was in the nature of contract. There was mutual obligations between the parties and the same entailed facts which were to be ascertained at each and every step by the loanee institution. If the contractual obligations are allowed to be enforced through the filing of the writ petitions, the Statute by the name of Specific Relief Act shall become redundant. This Court shall not assume the function of determination of disputed facts. The writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. "
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Deputy Attorney-General. The latter on our direction has contacted F.I.A., Multan and states that the F.I.A. has since completed the inquiry on the complaint of the petitioner and will submit the report to the F.I.A. Headquarters, Islamabad within a week.
3. It appears that the proceedings on the petitioner's complaint before the F.I.A. were pending when he filed the writ petition. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly disposed of the petitioner's writ petition with the direction that he may approach the inquiry officer in the F.I.A. and get the matter inquired -into. Now that the inquiry has been completed by the F.I.A. Petitioner should better await the result of that inquiry. With this observation this petition is disposed of. A.A./Z-2/S Order accordingly