| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1967 SLG 5396 = 1967 SLD 5396 = 1967 PLD 18 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 2088-R of 1962, decided on 23rd June 1966.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Cheema, J
Ishaq Muhammad for Petitioners. Kh. Saeed-ul-Hassan and Sheikh Naseer-ud-Din for Respon dents.
Writ Petition No. 2088-R of 1962, decided on 23rd June 1966.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Cheema, J
Ishaq Muhammad for Petitioners. Kh. Saeed-ul-Hassan and Sheikh Naseer-ud-Din for Respon dents.
DILDAR MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS-Petitioners
VERSUS
HEEMAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 98
Constitution of Pakistan (1962). Art. 98-Writ jurisdiction of High Court--Res judicata-Principle, though applicable, by and large, to writ petitions, not applied in instant case where there was change in law in meantime, and the case related to inheritance covered by paras. 46, 46-A, Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme (Punjab)-Res judicata in such cases not an inflexible rule Subsequent petition may be treated as review of earlier decision if placed before same Bench. Held, that although by and large the principle of res judicata was also applicable to writ petitions, with a view to conclude litigation and impart finality to adjudication it could not be invoked in the instant case. A mass migration o: Muslims, from India coupled with the promulgation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act gave rise to a complexity and variety of problems, particularly on the question of inheritance of deceased right-holders. Both as a result of experience gained as well as in view of the conflicting judgments of the Courts, the Rehabilitation Department had to issue frequent notifications, amending the Rehabilitation Scheme from time to time. Since the law on the point had been amended from time to time, partly by notifications and partly as a result of legal decisions, the writ petition would not be hit by the principle of res judicata, which even otherwise was not to be strictly and rigidly applied as an inflexible rule to all cases under writ jurisdiction, irrespective of the circumstances of each case. It was after the Full Bench had given a ruling favourable to the petitioner that he re-agitated the matter before the Rehabilitation Authorities which he had every right to do. It was only in view of a technical objection that the authorities refused to give effect to the Full Bench ruling which had been re-affirmed by the Supreme Court, whose legal pronouncements were the law of the land to be followed by all subordinate Courts in the country. Once the Supreme Court had taken this view, the Rehabilitation Authorities, like all subordinate Courts including the High Court were bound to follow the dictum of their Lordships which was in the nature of a…