1987 PLP 676 (SCMR)
Major (Rtd.) GHANI KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MUQTADIR KHAN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 676 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Failure to avail remedy by way of appeal/revision‑‑Effect‑‑Remedy of appeal and revision though available, not availed of‑‑Limitation for appeal having expired, relief obtained through constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Order impugned‑‑No tangible explanation offered by respondent for not availing of remedy of appeal/revision‑‑Petition converted into appeal and allowed‑‑Impugned judgment of High Court set aside.‑‑Appeal (civil). |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Major (Rtd.) GHANI KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MUQTADIR KHAN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 676 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 676 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Failure to avail remedy by way of appeal/revision‑‑Effect‑‑Remedy of appeal and revision though available, not availed of‑‑Limitation for appeal having expired, relief obtained through constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Order impugned‑‑No tangible explanation offered by respondent for not availing of remedy of appeal/revision‑‑Petition converted into appeal and allowed‑‑Impugned judgment of High Court set aside.‑‑Appeal (civil). bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 676 (SCMR) (Major (Rtd.) GHANI KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MUQTADIR KHAN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Qasim Imam Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 1986.
- Abdur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Nur Ahmad Khan
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑4‑1984 in R.S.A. No. 642 of 1972). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Failure to avail remedy by way of appeal/revision‑‑Effect‑‑Remedy of appeal and revision though available, not availed of‑‑Limitation for appeal having expired, relief obtained through constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Order impugned‑‑No tangible explanation offered by respondent for not availing of remedy of appeal/revision‑‑Petition converted into appeal and allowed‑‑Impugned judgment of High Court set aside.‑‑[Appeal (civil)]. Abdur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Nur Ahmad Khan
Judgment & Decree
M. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Qasim Imam Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Abdur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Nur Ahmad Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 6‑4‑1983 of the Peshawar High Court; whereby respondent's Constitutional Petition arising out of a pre‑emption case, was allowed.
2. Respondent No.1 instituted suit against petitioner/ vendee, before a civil Court for possession of the suit land through pre‑emption on various grounds including one of tenancy under M.L.R.
115. It was transferred to the Collector under sub‑pare. (5) of Paragraph 25 of the M.L. R. , who held that the ground of tenancy was not available at the relevant time. The case was re‑submitted to the Civil Court, for the trial of the remaining grounds, by the Collector with his order, dated 21‑10‑1979. Aggrieved by this order the respondent (pre‑emptor) successfully challenged it after a year in the High Court through a Constitutional Petition. The petitioner (vendee) has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has contended that remedy of appeal and thereafter of revision being available to the respondent without seeking 'the same, he could not be granted relief in Constitutional jurisdiction particularly when the respondent did not avail the remedy of appeal on account of its having become time‑barred.
4. It is not denied that remedies of appeal and revision were available to the respondent No.
1. No tangible explanation has been offered from the respondent's side as to why those not availed of. It is also not denied that the respondent's appeal to Commissioner had become time‑barred due to his inaction. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, while converting this petition into appeal we allow the same. The impugned judgment is set aside. There shall be no orders as to costs. M. I./G‑7/S Order accordingly.