| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5809 2024 SLD 5809 = 2024 CLC 1740 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-241 of 2024, decided on 24th April, 2024.
Before Shamsuddin Abbasi and Agha Faisal, JJ
Naushad Ali Tagar for Petitioner. Abdul Hamid Bhurgi, Additional Advocate General along with for official
Respondents. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate-General.
Constitutional Petition No.D-241 of 2024, decided on 24th April, 2024.
Before Shamsuddin Abbasi and Agha Faisal, JJ
Naushad Ali Tagar for Petitioner. Abdul Hamid Bhurgi, Additional Advocate General along with for official
Respondents. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate-General.
AZIZULLAH SOOMRO and another----Petitioners
VERSUS
MUZAFAR HUSSAIN and 2 others----Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115,(2),(4)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Concurrent findings, assailing of---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Scope---Ambit of a constitution petition is not that of a forum of appeal, nor does it automatically become such a forum in instances where no further legal recourse is provided or precluded by the law, and is restricted, inter alia, to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the order impugned.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.115---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Judgment passed by the District Court in its revisional jurisdiction---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Scope and effect---Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides for the remedy of revision and subsection (2) thereof empowers the District Court to exercise power of revision in respect of any case decided by asubordinate Court---Subsection (4) of S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, clearly explicates that no proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under said subsection by the District Court---Prima facie, there is a statutory bar upon further escalation in the High Court of a matter determined per the said provision---Impugned Order had admittedly been rendered per S. 115(2), C.P.C. and petitioner had remained unable to advance any argument as to how ( present ) constitutional petition could be entertained in view of the statutory bar contained in S. 115(4), C.P.C.---Constitutional jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary in nature and should not be exercised to defeat or bypass the purpose of a validly enacted statutory provision---Invocation of constitutional jurisdiction in view of the bar contained in S. 115(4), C.P.C. would prima facie disturb the conclusiveness ascribed to the finality of orders per S. 115(2), C.P.C. and unwarranted interference could be construed as defeating manifest legislative intent---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.President All Pakistan Women Association v. Muhammad Akbar Awan 2020 SCMR 260…