RASHID BAIG vs MUHAMMAD MANSHA art — 2024 SCMR 1385 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.

RASHID BAIG VS MUHAMMAD MANSHA art. 199---Interim order challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Petitioners-defendants moved applications for summoning revenue officers etc as witness, but same were dismissed by the Trial Court, which was challenged through revision petition and revision also met with the same fate---Petitioners challenged the said two orders of the Trial Court and the revisional court through constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under article 199 of the Constitution, however, the writ petition was also dismissed---Validity---Suit was filed on 27.05.2004 which was still pending and due to the petitioners-defendants matter was being delayed---Counsel for the petitioners was unable to state whether the witnesses i.e. Patwari who entered the mutation in the year 1956 challenged through the suit were alive or not---In these circumstances, the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition when there was no jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the fora below---Leave was refused and petition was dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1385 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case RASHID BAIG VS MUHAMMAD MANSHA S. 115---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Interim order challenged in revisional jurisdiction or constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---When a party challenges any interim order during the pendency of a suit under revisional jurisdiction or constitutional jurisdiction vested in the revisional court or the High Court, the court has to exercise the jurisdiction keeping in view that it is an interim order, as every interim order need not be challenged at that stage because it is now settled that when a suit is finally decided by the trial court, all the interim orders become open in appeal; if there is a defect in the interim order that is open to scrutiny at the stage of final appeal, as the first appeal is continuation of a trial and first appellate court is a court of fact and law---But, if a party to the suit opts to challenge an interim order when it is passed through appellate jurisdiction, revisional jurisdiction or constitutional jurisdiction, while exercising such jurisdiction the scope of jurisdiction vested in the Court must be in the view of the party challenging the same and while dealing with the interim order the court must also keep in view the scope of jurisdiction to scrutinize the interim orders. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1385 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case RASHID BAIG VS MUHAMMAD MANSHA O.XX, R. 1---Petition for leave to appeal or an appeal filed before the Supreme Court---Proceedings pending before the Trial Court---Effect---Execution proceedings as well as the proceedings before the Trial Court do not automatically get stayed when a petition is filed before the Supreme Court unless an injunctive order is granted by the Supreme Court---It is observed that when an injunctive order is not granted by the Supreme Court the parties to the proceedings apply for stay of the proceedings or execution without any injunctive order from the Supreme Court and in some eventualities after refusal of injunctive order from the Supreme Court the parties to the proceedings before the trial court apply for stay of execution or proceedings in the suit which is not only a clear cut abuse of process of law but also contempt of court---If this practice is carried on by the parties or even the Trial Court i.e. sine die adjourning the proceedings or staying the proceedings of the suit without any injunctive order, they will face the consequences of such an illegal order.

RASHID BAIG vs MUHAMMAD MANSHA art — 2024 SCMR 1385 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR