1989SCMR443 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR443 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR443 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR443 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR443 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in the 3 Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988.
- Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani, Advocate (absent) and S.Inayat Hussain,
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in the 3 Petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 9-3-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petitions Nos.896, 897 and 898/1981).
S.115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199--Question of jurisdiction--Allotment of land resumed under Land Reforms Regulation-- Petitioners' revision petition having failed, they invoked Constitutional jurisdiction--Question raised before High Court regarding jurisdiction of Land Reforms Authorities having been properly dealt with in impugned judgment, petition had no merits--Leave to appeal refused.
Art.199--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Order maintained by High Court in revisional jurisdiction challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction- Competency of such action--Allotment of land resumed under Land Reforms Regulation--Petitioners' revision petition having failed, they invoked Constitutional jurisdiction--Basic order of which petitioners were aggrieved having been maintained by High Court in revisional jurisdiction, same was challenged in writ jurisdiction in second round--Held: Writ could not be issued under Article 199 of the Constitution so as to annul an order or the effect of an order passed by the High Court itself. Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani, Advocate (absent) and S.Inayat Hussain,
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULI,AH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these three petitions by the plaintiffs' side against the dismissal of their writ petitions by the High Court. The dispute relates to the allotment of land resumed under Land Reforms Regulation. An order adverse to the petitioners was passed on 26‑11 1978. According to the learned counsel, it was challenged before the higher Land Reforms authorities, but without any success. The petitioners then filed a civil suit but that too met the same fate upto the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction. They then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Their writ petitions having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal. Although the question raised before the High Court regarding jurisdiction of the Land Reforms authorities has properly been dealt with in the impugned judgment, this petition merits to be dismissed on another ground as well. The learned counsel admitted that the basic order of which the petitioners were aggrieved, was the one passed on 26‑11‑1978. The High Court, in its civil revisional jurisdiction, had in the earlier round refused to set it aside. In other words, when challenging the same order in writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the second round, the petitioners could not have succeeded unless the revisional order of the High Court was set aside. This was not possible because a writ could not be issued under Article 199 of the Constitution so as to annul an order or the effect of an order passed by the High Court itself. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel could not press these petitions any further. They are, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. M.I./M‑565/S Petition dismissed.