Home Maxims & Terms Appellate Jurisdiction meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Jurisdiction legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

1998 PTD 3835 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases "Appeal" and "appellate jurisdiction"

Connotation.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Appellate Jurisdiction", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21162

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Appellate Jurisdiction"

PLD 2026
CUO No. 1 of 2025 in C.P.L.A. No. Nil of 2025, decided on 12th December, 2025.

P L D 2026 Supreme Court 291

Messrs MOON DENTAL CLINIC, ISLAMABAD and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ISLAMABAD-WEST and another — Respondents

Court: ----Arts.175-F(1)(c) inserted through Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act (XXXII of 2025) & 185(3)---Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court---Maintainability Post---Twenty-seventh Constitutional amendment---Office objection---Matter relating to rent proceedings---No appeal lay before Supreme Court in rent matters, objection of---Legality---Rent matter not being expressly excluded from appellate jurisdiction of Federal Constitutional Court---Effect---Overruling of objection---Scope---Briefly, present petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court judgment passed under Article 199 of the Constitution in a rent matter, where the office objected that after Article 175F (27th Amendment), the High Court was the final forum and no appeal lay to the Supreme Court---Held: The proviso to Article 185(3), which provided that "no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court in cases to which clause (1) of Article 175F applies", made it evident that the bar on the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court was confined only to those cases which, in fact, fell within the ambit of Article 175F(1)---Since rent and family matters stood expressly excluded from the applicability of Article 175F(1)(c), such cases could not be regarded as cases to which Article 175F applied---Consequently, petitions arising out of rent and family matters were not barred from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185(3), subject to the grant of leave---The objection raised by the Office, premised on the petition arising out of a rent matter, was misconceived and was rightly overruled---In view of the express exclusion of rent matters from the scope of Article 175F(1)(c), such cases could not be regarded as falling within Article 175F(1)---The proviso to Article 185(3) was, therefore, not attracted, and the present petition was maintainable, in circumstances.
CLC 1992
Writ Petition No. 1202 of 1990, decided on 23rd December, 19990

1992CLC453

HUSSAIN CORPORATION‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, D.G. KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLC(CS) 2002
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 187 of 2001, decided on, 18th January, 2002.

2002 P L C (C

ASHFAQ AHMED Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 3 others

Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)
PLD 1967
Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 1961, decided on 14th June 1966.

P L D 1967 Lahore 439

GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER-Appellants Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA AND OTHERS-Respondents

Court:
PLD 1975
Civil Appeal No. K-3 of 1974, decided on 20th September 1974.

P L D 1975 Supreme Court 32

SINDH EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION AND ANOTHER Appellants Versus ADAMJEE COTTON MILLS LTD. Respondent

Court:
CLC 1999
Execution Application No.86 of 1998, decided on 24th December, 1998

1999 C L C 1121

MUHAMMAD ASAR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Decree‑holder Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

Court: Karachi
PLD 2021
2021-July-26

P L D 2021 Supreme Court 809

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1951
Letters Patent Appeal No. 25 of 1949 under clause 10 of the Letters Patent decided on 30th ":ay, 1951, against the order of Mr. Justice Muhammad Sharif, dated the 16th May, 1949, passed in Civil Miscellaneous No. 73 of 1949, dismissing in limini the appellants' application under Order 41 rule 21 read with Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the rehearing of Second Appeal No. 69 of 1948.

P

MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑Appellants Versus DIN MUHAMMAD and others‑Respondents

Court:
PTD 2003
Civil Appeal NO. 155-S of 1999, decided on 18th March, 2003.

2003 P T D 1774

DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (REFUND), LAHORE Versus AYESHA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.

Court: Lahore High Court
PTD 2006
Special Sales Tax Appeal No.23 of 1994, decided on 22nd November, 2005.

2006 P T D 310

TOWELLERS LTD. through Chief Operating Officer Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Represented by Member Sales Tax

Court: Karachi High Court