MUHAMMAD SAFEER vs MUHAMMAD AZAM art — 2024 PLD 838 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD SAFEER VS MUHAMMAD AZAM art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---alternate remedy, availability of---Principles---High Court will not ordinarily entertain a petition under article 199 of the Constitution when an adequate remedy is available and such remedy only regulates the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and does not affect its existence---When the law provides an adequate remedy, constitutional jurisdiction under article 199 will ordinarily only be exercised in exceptional circumstances---Exceptional circumstances which may justify exercising jurisdiction when an adequate remedy is available are when the order or action assailed before the High Court is palpably without jurisdiction, manifestly mala fide, void or coram non judice---Tendency to bypass a statutory remedy is ordinarily discouraged so that the legislative intent is not defeated---High Court, while exercising its discretion, must take into consideration the facts and circumstances in each case in order to determine whether the remedy provided under the statute is illusory or not. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 838 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SAFEER VS MUHAMMAD AZAM S. 8---Review of orders by the Board---Scope---Subsection (1) of section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 ("Act of 1957") sets out the scope and the grounds for exercising the power of review---Three grounds expressly stated in section 8(1) of the Act of 1957 are: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by the person seeking review at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made; (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and (iii) 'for any other sufficient reason'---Review jurisdiction conferred under section 8 of the Act of 1957 is, therefore, confined and limited to the said three grounds---Expression 'for any other sufficient reason' does not extend to every cause which would make the remedy by way of review available but such cause must be relatable to the circumstances as discovery of new and important matter or some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record---Expression, therefore, is to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding expressions or grounds---Any other interpretation would change the nature of the review contrary to the legislative intent, because the legislature had indeed not intended to provide the remedy of an appeal---Scope of the review jurisdiction under section 8 of the Act of 1957 is, therefore, restricted to the grounds expressly prescribed by the legislature. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 838 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SAFEER VS MUHAMMAD AZAM art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---alternate remedy---adequate remedy---Meaning---Expression adequate remedy represents an efficacious, reachable, accessible, advantageous and expeditious remedy.

MUHAMMAD SAFEER vs MUHAMMAD AZAM art — 2024 PLD 838 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD