| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 788 1997 SLD 788 1997 SCMR 1508 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 195, 245, 246 and 247 of 1997, decision dated: 4-06-1997
AJMAL MIAN, ACTG. C.J., IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 195, 245, 246 and 247 of 1997, decision dated: 4-06-1997
AJMAL MIAN, ACTG. C.J., IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others
VS
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Appeal to Supreme Court---Interlocutory orders passed by competent Court--Interference by Supreme Court---Essentials---Supreme Court being apex Court, generally would not interfere with interlocutory orders passed by competent Courts---Where, however, such orders were arbitrary, capricious and against well-settled principles of law, Supreme Court was bound to interfere with the same in order to obviate miscarriage of justice---Principle that non-interference in interlocutory orders of Courts below by Supreme Court was matter of rule and interference was exception, seemed to be sound principle---Where, however, exercise of discretionary power through interlocutory orders was of such nature wherein well-settled principles of law had been ignored, same would fall within exception warranting interference--Petitioners' cases would fall within category of exception. Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Mian Miraj-ud-Din and others 1994 SCMR 2281 and Ittefaq Sugar Mills Ltd. and another v. Mian Miraj-udDin and 21 others 1996 SCMR 452 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 185(2) & 185(3)---Appeal to Supreme Court---Distinction between right of appeal provided under Art. 185(2) and petition for leave to appeal under Art., 185(3) explained and illustrated. . There is a marked distinction between a right of appeal provided under clause (2) of Article 185 of the Constitution and a petition for leave to appeal under clause (3) of the said Article. A party would be entitled to file an appeal if his case was covered by clause (2) of Article 185 of the Constitution in the matters provided in sub-clauses (a) to (f) thereof as a matter of right; whereas under clause (3) of Article 185, there is no such right vested in a party to file petition for leave. Supreme Court has the discretion to grant or to refuse leave according to the merits of the case concerned. No doubt the above discretion is to be exercised justly and fairly in consonance with the basic norms of justice. Petitions have been filed under clause (3) of Article 185 of the Constitution,…
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