P L D 1991 Karachi 205 (PLP)

In this Revision pre‑admission notices were issued on 23‑10‑1990. Such notices were duly served and the contesting respondents are represented today, K.M.C, respondent No.6, being only pro forma. The short question which alone need be addressed at this stage is whether the learned Appellate Court could altogether ignore an application filed before it touching the questions involved in the Appeal and proceed to decide the Appeal without so much as even taking note of such application.The answer is self‑evident. It is an obligation of a Court of law to entertain all or any applications/matters filed before it; in this Court has no option. The rule, as applicable to Courts of law, generally, is as fundamental as the inherent jurisdiction of a superior Court to interpret the Constitution which, as declared by Hamoodur Rehman, C.J., in State v. Zia‑ur‑Rehman PLD 1973 SC 49, "can only be taken away by abolishing the Court itself." Next, the Court is fixed with a further duty, equally elementary in nature, to take up and dispose of a matter brought before it in accordance with law, which implies that such can either be accepted or rejected but always in accordance with law. It is an admitted position that two applications were moved by the present applicant before the learned 1Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi South, in Civil Appeal No.203 of 1987, one .of which was directed to seek additional evidence through appointment of a Commissioner and the other for framing/re‑casting of some of the issues. Both these applications, according to the learned counsel present, who have verified from the record of the learned Appellate Court, which was summoned earlier, remain undisposed of. Counsel agree that it was the obligation of the Court to address itself relative to these applications and deal with them, one way or the other. Accordingly, in view of the above, I admit this Revision Application and, basing my conclusion on the foregoing, set aside the consolidated appellate judments and decrees, as having been rendered upon refusal to exercise C jurisdiction conferred by law. Consequently, the matters shall go back to the learned Appellate Court, which will deal with all the controversies in an appropriate legal perspective and in due course of law. It need hardly be emphasised here that where the dimensions or area of a prpoperty are involved necessary inspections and reports may be the best p evidence in the matter. Similarly, on a dispute of issues having been properly framed or otherwise it is never too late for a Court to examine the question and to frame, re‑frame, alter, modify or re‑cast the issues, as the justice of the cause may require. In saying so, it is not intended to interfere with the discretion of the learned Appellate Court. The Court will remain free to bring its judicial mind to bear on the matter as best as possible. The observation is meant only to emphasise the obvious because, at times, even the obvious may escape attention. Subject to the foregoing, the Revision Application stands allowed. With F this all or any of the pending applications therein are also disposed of. At this stage, it is suggested by Mr. Mohammad Sadiq that the learned Appellate Court may be required to dispose of the matter on remand expeditiously and at an early date. The suggestion is accepted. The learned Court may act accordingly but, at the same time, without any undue haste. A.A./Z‑151/K Case remanded.