1983 PLP 1226 (SCMR)
JAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1226 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1226 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1226 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1226 (SCMR) (JAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th March, 1983.
- Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 21-3-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W. P. No. 3179 of 1981). -- Art. 9-High Court in its writ jurisdiction does not normally interfere with findings of fact recorded on basis of material before statutory authority-High Court, however; can pass order designed to further ends of justice and to secure correct decision based on true situation in case-Leave refused in circumstances-Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 185(3).
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 21‑3‑1982, whereby the Writ Petition (W. P. No. 3179 of 1981) filed by the respondent No. 1 (Muhammad Siddique), was accepted and the order of the A. C./Collector, Chunian, dated 28‑7‑1980 was set aside and the case remanded to the said Officer for hearing and deciding it afresh. The A. C./Collector bad accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner by the aforesaid order. The learned Judge in the High Court has, however, held that the learned Collector had overlooked material evidence and other relevant circumstances while disposing of the appeal preferred before him. It was further held that the Collector had not applied his mind to the evidence before him and though the Evidence Act was not strictly applicable the matter ought to have been decided on merits and not on technicalities. Consequently, his order was declared to be without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect, The case was sent back to the Collector for hearing and deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Mr. Hakam Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction does not normally interfere with findings of fact recorded on the basis of the material before statutory authorities. We agree and that this is normally the case. However, we find that, this is not a fit case for interference because the High Court has obviously passed an order designed to further the ends of justice and to secure correct decision based on the true situation in the case. In these circum stances, we are not inclined to interfere in our discretionary jurisdiction of granting leave to appeal, in such a matter. This Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.