1989 PLP 1743 (SCMR)
AYYAS MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1743 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | AYYAS MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1743 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1743 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1743 (SCMR) (AYYAS MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Azim‑ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑6‑1984, in W.P. No.2874 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.12(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199 Constitutional jurisdiction is not to be exercised in aid of injustice‑‑Allegation of fraud High Court found that petitioner had not been defrauded instead he tried to defraud the other party on the basis of mere technicalities‑‑Contention that departure from law could be made use of by the petitioner, notwithstanding the adverse findings about his conduct repelled‑‑Held, writ could not be issued in aid of injustice under the Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court‑‑Petitioner had rightly been refused relief in the discretionary jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. It had arisen out of the dismissal of his application under section 12(2) of C.P.C.: whereby he had challenged a decree about sale of land by him, on ground of fraud. Despite protracted litigation the petitioner has not been able to obtain a favourable finding on question of fraud. The High Court held that he had received the sale consideration and was trying to retain it without justification. And thus it was also found that he had not been defrauded. Instead, he was trying to defraud the other party on the basis of mere technicalities. Therefore, he was not entitled to a discretionary relief. Learned counsel has tried to assail the aforestated view of the High Court. He has contended that departure from law could be made use of by the petitioner; notwithstanding the adverse findings about his conduct. We do not agree with him. It is now an accepted rule that a writ shall not issue in aid of injustice under the Constitutional jurisdiction conferred by Art.199 of the Constitution on the High Court. The petitioner has rightly been refused relief in this discretionary jurisdiction. The approach of the High Court is unexceptionable. Otherwise too the argument of the learned counsel based on Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act and paragraph 25 of the M.L.R. 115 has rightly been repelled by the learned Judge of the High Court by reference to the Supreme Court view on, the point. Looked at from whatever angle this petition has no force and is dismissed. M.A.K./A‑525/S Petition dismissed.