Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 120 of 1968, decided on 21st June 1968.
(On appeal from the 'judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 16th January 1968, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 1966)..
Art. 98‑High Court holding that petitioner had not approached Court with clean hands dismissing writ petition‑Discretion exercised by High Court, in circumstance, held not open to interference by Supreme Court‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st June 1968.
‑The petitioner was allotted 80 kanals and 7 marlas of land. On an application made by the respondent No. 1, that he was not entitled to the allotment of so much land, his allotment in respect of 41 kanals and 5 marlas was cancelled and ordered to be delivered to respondent No. 1. Being un successful to get any redress from the Settlement authorities he filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore on the ground that the petitioner was found to have been guilty of commission of an act of forgery in connection with his Revision application filed before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Com missioner, Multan Division. The learned Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition in limine as according to him the petitioner had come with unclean hands. This order was armed in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order under challenge in the writ petition had been passed without jurisdiction and therefore the High Court should not have dismissed the petition in limine. It appears that on 17‑4‑1965, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, on an application filed by the respondent No. 1, reviewed a previous order passed by him on the 15th January 1964, by which the excess land taken away from Abdul Ghani was given to Shah Nawaz though there was a previous order dated the 30th Marzh 1961, according to which the said land was given to Abdul Ghafoor, respondent No. 1. It is against this order that the petitioner filed the Revision Petition before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and it was found that the date of obtaining the copy was changed to save limita tion. The learned Single Judge in the High Court took note of this fact and dismissed the writ petition. The High Court was exercising a discretionary jurisdiction and if it has refused to exercise the same because of the conduct of the petitioner it is not for as to interfere with such an order. The contention of the learned counsel that the review order was passed without jurisdiction does not also appear to be sound. There were two conflicting orders by which the excess land was given to two different persons and if in such circumstances the Additional Settlement Commissioner found that the order in favour of Shah Nawaz was passed under a misapprehension, no exception can be taken to such an order particularly by the petitioner.
The petition has no merits and is therefore dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer