MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHUJABAD art — 2025 CLC 1737 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHUJABAD art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Not every procedural irregularity warrants interference by the High Court---No writ where substantial justice has prevailed---Discretionary nature of Constitutional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of courts below, principle of---It is pertinent to mention that the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction is not required to interfere in each and every case, where the court or forum below has proceeded with some irregularity while deciding the matter---an order in the nature of a writ of certiorari or mandamus is a discretionary order---Its object is to foster justice and right a wrong, therefore, before a person can be permitted to invoke this discretionary power of a court, it must be shown that the order sought to be set aside had occasioned some injustice to the parties---although it is general practice of procedural law that where an application going to the root of the matter remains undecided usually the courts remand the matter for decision of the same afresh, while also keeping in view the contents of the said application, but the same is not an absolute rule of law and the courts may refuse to set aside the decision inter alia for the reasons that prejudice has not been caused to the rights of the parties or by the said decision justice has been done and to set aside the said decision would result in prejudice to the right(s) of any of the parties---Where substantial justice has been done, it is not necessary for the High Court to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction on the basis of technicalities alone for the reason that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character and where courts below have given concurrent conclusions, Superior Courts generally do not interfere in the conclusions arrived at by Courts and Tribunals below.

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHUJABAD art — 2025 CLC 1737 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC