Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 2098 2020 SLD 2098 2020 PLD 617
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.R.Ps. Nos. 104-L, 114-L in C.Ps. 258-L, 257-L of 2019, decision & hearing Date : 18-08-2020 (Against the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Dated 01.08.2019, passed in C.Ps. Nos. 257-L and 258-L/2019).
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE
Dr. Abdul Basit, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in both cases). Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotya, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in both cases).

FAROOQ HUSSAIN AND OTHERS

VS

SHEIKH AFTAB AHMAD AND OTHERS

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10-A,184,185,188

(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 10-A, 184, 185 & 188---Judgments/orders challenged before the Supreme Court---Judgment given by the Supreme Court---Scope and contents---If the Supreme Court, having examined the challenged before it, was satisfied with its reasoning and conclusions and was of the view that it did not call for any interference, the Supreme Court could simply endorse the impugned and adopt the reasoning of the court below---In such cases re-tracing the same path travelled by the court below appeared to be an unnecessary exercise and a waste of public time---Finding no reversible error in the , a concise, simple order could suffice, however if the Court was to reverse or modify the of the court below, the reasons for the reversal or modification must be set forth---Such approach was by no means a short-cut which was offensive to fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution. One of the grounds for review in the present case was that the order under review was without any reason. The order under review passed by the Supreme Court read:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have gone through the impugned of the High Court, the record of the case and the law on the subject. We have not been able to take any exception to the reasoning of the impugned and are of the view that it does not warrant any interference. Leave is, therefore, declined and these petitions are dismissed." If the Supreme Court, having examined the challenged before it, was satisfied with its reasoning and conclusions and was of the view that it did not call for any interference, the Supreme Court could simply endorse the impugned and adopt the reasoning of the court below. In such a case, re-tracing the same path travelled by the court below appeared to be an unnecessary exercise and a waste of public time - time which could be allocated to other cases where the decisions of the courts below had been overturned or modified. Finding no reversible error in the , a concise, simple order could suffice. On the other hand, if the Court was to reverse or modify the of the court below, the reasons for the reversal or modification must be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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