1985 PLP 1226 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus ATAULLAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1226 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus ATAULLAH and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1226 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1226 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1226 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus ATAULLAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record (in C.P.No. 1472 of 1980) for Petitioner.
- Mirza Muhammad Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record (in C.P.No. 1483 of 19810) for Petitioner.
- S. Munir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mr Hamid Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 23‑9‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 574‑R of 1980). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Competency of‑‑Legality of order passed by Division Bench of High Court questioned in writ juris diction‑‑High Court not being a person as defined in cl.. (5) of Art. 199, against whom High Court was empowered to issue a writ, recourse of writ jurisdiction, held, not competent. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XIII, r. 5 & O. XXVIII, r. 3‑‑Frivolous litigation‑‑Awarding of costs‑‑Petitioners resorting to civil litigation on questions already concluded in previous round‑‑Having lost thrice before Supreme Court, raising same submissions before High Court‑‑Again seeking leave to appeal against rejection of petitions‑‑Respondents put to expense by lodging caveat‑‑Such frivolous and vexatious litigation not to be permitted to go unnoticed‑‑Petitioners directed to pay Rs.2,000 in gross in lieu of taxed costs awarded to respondents‑‑Petitions dismissed. Asif Jah Siddiqi v Government of Sind P L D 1983 S C 46 rel.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ The dispute between the parties had been decided on 12‑12‑1974 in the earlier round, by the Lahore High Court in Settlement Revision No. 52 of 1965, against which the petitioners plea for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court had been rejected first by the dismissal of their Civil Petition on 29‑7‑1975, and then by the dismissal of their Review Petition on 12‑12‑1976 and another Review Petition on 9‑4‑1978. Having thus failed, the petitioners started a new round by instituting a civil suit but when the same was dismissed on 3‑2‑1980 and so was their appeal on 16‑3‑1980, they again came to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 574‑R of 1980. Their attempt, in substance, was the reversal of the order passed in the aforesaid Settlement Revision. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on 23‑9‑1980 by a learned Single Judge by the impugned order upon the view that:‑ "It is doubtful as to whether the petitioners are entitled without risk to raise any of the submissions having lost the same thrice over in the highest Court in the land. Surely, it is not possible for this Court to entertain these submissions, which have no substance either." Aggrieved, the petitioners have sought leave to appeal by filing these two petitions, Civil Petition No. 1472 of 1980 by Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Yaqub and Civil Petition No. 1482 of 1980 by Muhammad Rafiq.
2. As appears from the impugned order, the petitioners had questioned the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench in the Settlement Revision on certain grounds. Thus they were seeking a writ against an order earlier passed by the High Court itself, which they could not do under Article 199 of the Constitution inasmuch as the High Court was not a "person" as defined in clause (5) of that Article, against whom the High Court was empowered to issue a writ. The recourse of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was thus not competent. In fact in view of this Court's pronouncement in Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind P L D 1983 S C 46, resort to civil litigation on questions already concluded in the previous round was barred. Such frivolous and vexatious litigation cannot be permitted to go unnoticed. The other party has been put to expense by lodging a caveat. This is, therefore, a fit case where costs should be awarded under Order XXVIII, rule 3 read with Order XIII, rule 5 of this Court's Rules. We, accordingly, while dismissing these petitions, direct the petitioners concerned to pay, in each petition, a sum of Rs.2,000 (rupees two thousand only) in gross in lieu of taxed costs. The amounts, on realization shall be paid to respondents 1 to
3. M.I Order accordingly.