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. 361 of 1980, decided on 9th April, 1980. .
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 5-3-1980, I. C. A. No. 56/80).
Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Interference by High Court at relevant stage likely to jeopardise adjudication of another competent Court, discretion exercised by High Court, held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity and case called for no interference by Supreme Court.
Ch. Muhammad Azim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advoeate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 9th April, 1980.
---This is a petition against an order of the High Court dated 5-3-1980, passed in an Intra-Court Appeal No. 56 of 1980, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11-2-1980, passed in Writ Petition bearing No. 1326/80 whereby the High Court refused to interfere or go into certain. alleged disqualifications in the election of the respondent as a member of Zila Council, Lahore, on the ground that a regular election petition has been filed by another contestant which covered the same point w x which was being asserted by the present petitioner in the High Court:,1F Learned counsel argued that his client as a tax-payer had filed a petition for quo warrant to and its adjudication could not have been shelved merely on the ground that some rival contestant of the respondent has challenged his election by an election petition as well. The contention has no merit because it is lit the discretion of the High Court whether in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, it would like to proceed in inquiry about a matter which is already competently sub judice before another forum, though at the instance. of another party. The discretion in the instant case exercised by the High Court sloes riot suffer from any legal infirmity because any interference by the High Court, at this stage was likely to jeopardize the adjudication of another competent Court. The view taken by the High Court on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case does not call for any interference by this Court.
2. The result is that as no case is made out for grant of leave the petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer