1969 PLP 268 (SCMR)
HUSSAIN BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1969 PLP 268 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J |
| Parties | HUSSAIN BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 268 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 268 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 268 (SCMR) (HUSSAIN BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Akhtar Mir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 25th February 1969.
- If this be correct, then the petition does, in our opinion, raise a very important question of law of public importance as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to review an order passed by it in the exercise of its power under Article 98 of the Constitution. This question, in view of the difference of opinion in the High Court itself, needs authoritative decision.: We, accordingly, grant leave in this petition to examine the above question. subject to all just exceptions that may be taken on the ground of limitation. This appeal will be heard on the paper‑book, prepared for the petition but either party will have liberty to add further documents on which it wished to rely by way of supplementary paper‑books. The appeal will be made ready for hearing in the week commencing the 17th of March 1969. Notices to issue immediately to the Advocate‑General and the Bar Association, Lahore High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th May 1968, in Review Application No. 72 of 1967). Constitution of Pakistan (1962) -- Art. 98‑Review‑Whether High Court has jurisdiction to review order passed by it in exercise of its power under Art. 98‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question and set at rest conflicting decisions in P L D 1963 Lah. 596 and P L D 1965 Lah. 590.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, declining to review their order passed on the 9th March 1967, dismissing in limine a Writ Petition No. 202‑R of 1967 (Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner and another). The review was sought on the ground of discovery of new and fresh evidence in the nature of valuable documents having an important bearing on the whole case. The High Court, however, relying on a Full Bench decision of the same Court in the case of Jalal Din v. Major Muhammad Akram Khan (P L D 1963 Lah. 596) held that it had no jurisdiction to review its previous order passed in the exercise of the power vested in it under Article 98 of the Constitution, No. other point was touched nor were the merits of the case entered, 'into' but the review petition was dismissed only on this ground of jurisdiction. It is, however, pointed out that in another case, Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Aziz and another (P L D 1965 Lah. 590), the West Pakistan High Court has itself taken a somewhat different view. The office being under the impression that the petition for special leave to appeal was directed against the order in the Writ Petition passed on the 9th March 1967, has reported that the .petition is barred by 470 days but the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contends that he does not wish to move against the order in the Writ Petition itself but only against the order dismissing the review against which his petition for special leave to appeal is well in time. If this be correct, then the petition does, in our opinion, raise a very important question of law of public importance as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to review an order passed by it in the exercise of its power under Article 98 of the Constitution. This question, in view of the difference of opinion in the High Court itself, needs authoritative decision.: We, accordingly, grant leave in this petition to examine the above question. subject to all just exceptions that may be taken on the ground of limitation. This appeal will be heard on the paper‑book, prepared for the petition but either party will have liberty to add further documents on which it wished to rely by way of supplementary paper‑books. The appeal will be made ready for hearing in the week commencing the 17th of March 1969. Notices to issue immediately to the Advocate‑General and the Bar Association, Lahore High Court. The petitioner will furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,000 before the appeal is posted for hearing. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court status quo as to possession will be maintained.