2004 PLP 1030 (SCMR)
MASOOD ABBAS BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Administrator and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1030 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MASOOD ABBAS BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Administrator and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1030 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1030 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1030 (SCMR) (MASOOD ABBAS BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Administrator and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th May, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 54
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199
High Court dismissed revision and Constitutional petitions filed against judgment and decree passed by Courts below but neither up-set nor disturbed findings of fact recorded by Courts low with regard to rights and interests of parties in respect of suit-land-- High Court with consent of parties ordered disposal of applications with regard to entitlement of parties pending before Board of Revenue strictly according to law
High Court in exercise of its discretion and for enabling Board of Revenue to decide fate of entitlement of parties to suit-land had neither acted illegally nor arbitrarily
No substantial question of law of general public importance arose in the petition
Supreme Court dismissed petition.
Art. 185
Judgment of High Court, based on exercise of discretion
Supreme Court not bound to interfere with exercise of discretion in decisions, which were otherwise just, proper and equitable.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the High Court judgment, dated 1-3-1998 dismissing Civil Revision No. 1338-D of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 10140 of 1992 arising out of Appellate Court judgment confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the private respondents against respondent No.1 and the petitioner. By the impugned judgment, High Court has neither up-set nor disturbed the findings of fact recorded by two Courts below with regard to the rights and interests of the parties in respect of the suit-land. On the face of record, it transpires that applications with regard to entitlement of the parties are pending before the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, which have been ordered to be disposed of strictly according to law, on the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel contended that the course adopted by the learned Judge in Chambers is contrary to law but we find no merit and substance in this submission, as the High Court, in the exercise of its discretion and for enabling the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue to decide the fate of entitlement of the parties to the suit-land, neither acted illegally nor arbitrarily. Assuming for the sake of argument that the judgment was not lawful, this Court is not bound to interfere with the: exercise of discretion in such decisions, which are otherwise just, proper and equitable. No substantial question of law of general public importance appears to arise in these petitions, which are devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. S.A.K./M-573/S Petition dismissed.