| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 279 1974 SLD 279 1974 PLD 139 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1973, decision dated: 21st June 1973. (On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 11-4-1972 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 493 and 520 of 1963). dates of hearing : 20th and 21st June 1973
HAMOODUR REHMAN, C.J., MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI ANDMUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Wasim Sajjad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tan, it Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record 1 to 4.
Respondents 5, 8, 9 to 19, 23 and 24.
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1973, decision dated: 21st June 1973. (On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 11-4-1972 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 493 and 520 of 1963). dates of hearing : 20th and 21st June 1973
HAMOODUR REHMAN, C.J., MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI ANDMUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Wasim Sajjad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Kadri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tan, it Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record 1 to 4.
Respondents 5, 8, 9 to 19, 23 and 24.
MUHAMMAD HUSAIN MUNIR AND others
VS
SIKANDAR AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Art. 98(1) (a) (ii) and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)-Jurisdiction-Expression "without lawful authority and of no legal effect" - An expression of art and refers to jurisdictional defects as distinguished from a mere erroneous decision whether on question, of fact or even of law - High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, concerned only with question whether Court or Tribunal below had acted within its jurisdiction - Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly and mere fact that decision is incorrect does not render the decision as "without lawful authority"-High Court, in writ jurisdiction, not competent to interfere with order of Tribunal on purely equitable considerations.. It was not controverted that the matter before the High Court fell to be dealt with under paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (a) of clause (1), Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution. That being so, the High Court could have set aside the order, if it had reached the conclusion that the revisional order of the Board of Revenue was "without lawful authority and of no legal effect." These are expressions of art and refer to jurisdictional defects as distinguished from a mere erroneous decision whether on a question of fact or even of law. It is well-settled that where a Court or a tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines that question, it cannot be said that .it acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law. It is wholly wrong to consider that the constitutional provision was designed to empower the High Court to interfere with the decision of a Court or tribunal of inferior jurisdiction, merely because in its opinion the decision is wrong. In that case, it would make the High Court's jurisdiction indistinguishable from that exerciseable in a full-fledged appeal, which plainly is not the intention of the Constitution-makers. When there is jurisdiction to decide a particular matter then there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and the fact that the decision is incorrect does not render…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492