P L D 1982 Lahore 363 (PLP)
JODHA‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA AND
| Citation | P L D 1982 Lahore 363 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Art. 9 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 203 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑,Writ‑Revision Impugned order already challenged unsuccessfully by party under S. 115, C. P. C.‑Allowing such party to attack same order by means of writ petition‑Held, would amount to abuse of process of law and tend to prolong final determination of Civil disputes‑Writ petition, in such circumstance, cannot be entertained.‑Revision (civil)‑Writ. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | JODHA‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA AND |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1982 Lahore 363 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1982 Lahore 363 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Art. 9 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 203 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑,Writ‑Revision Impugned order already challenged unsuccessfully by party under S. 115, C. P. C.‑Allowing such party to attack same order by means of writ petition‑Held, would amount to abuse of process of law and tend to prolong final determination of Civil disputes‑Writ petition, in such circumstance, cannot be entertained.‑Revision (civil)‑Writ. bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1982 Lahore 363 (PLP) (JODHA‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA AND). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. D. Tahir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑ Art. 9 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 203 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑,Writ‑Revision Impugned order already challenged unsuccessfully by party under S. 115, C. P. C.‑Allowing such party to attack same order by means of writ petition‑Held, would amount to abuse of process of law and tend to prolong final determination of Civil disputes‑Writ petition, in such circumstance, cannot be entertained.‑[Revision (civil)‑Writ]. Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 SC139rel.
Judgment & Decree
This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree of an Additional District Judge whereby he had disposed of an appeal on the basis of special Oath.
2. Prior to the making of this constitutional petition the petitioner, Jodha, had filed a revision petition (Civil Revision No. 1469 of 1980) before this Court which was dismissed by my learned brother Lehrasap Khan, J. on 21st November 1981. All the pleas which have been advanced in the instant petition could be raised by the petitioner in the civil revision and it appears that, by and large, this was done by him. Learned counsel did not cite any authority for the proposition that even after this Court had dismissed his revision petition against the impugned order, the petitioner could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to assail that order. As ruled in Muhammad Husain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD1974SC139, the constitu tional jurisdiction of this Court, having regard to its nature or content, is assimilable to its jurisdiction under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. To allow a party, who has unsuccessfully challenged an order by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court, to attack the same order by means of a writ petition would, 'in my humble opinion, amount to the abuse of process of law and would tend to prolong final determination of civil disputes which, in most of the cases, take a number of years before they are finally settled. The petitioner in this case has already availed of an adequate remedy, before this Court, and I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the writ petition in hand. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. S. Q. Petition dismissed.