Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 117‑R of 1980, decided on 9th December, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 14‑5‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in C . R. No. 289 of 1978).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Baluchistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Question of jurisdiction of Commissioner after constitution of Majlis‑e‑Shoora being of considerable public importance, leave to appeal granted to consider same.

M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

‑‑This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of a vision Bench of the Baluchistan High Court, dated the 14th of May, 190, by which a writ petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.

The dispute taken to the High Court related to the redemption of land mortgaged with the petitioner by respondent No.1 Lal, who had instituted a suit against the petitioner under the provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation. It is not necessary to narrate the history of this litigation, and it would suffice to say that by the revisional order, dated the 291 of June, 1978, the learned Commissioner maintained the decree dated he 22nd of December, 1976, passed in favour of respondent Lal by the Additional District Magistrate on the basis of the opinion record by the Tribunal. The petitioner challenged this revisional order of the Commissioner in the High Court on several grounds, including the contention that with the enforcement of the Baluchistan Civil Esputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976, the revision petition for by the petition before the Commissioner stood transferred to the Majlis‑e‑Shoora which had been constituted under notification, dated he 12th of February, 1977. However, this contention was repelled by the learned Judges of the High Court on the view that as no Chairman ad been notified, the Majlis was not properly constituted, and, accordingly, the revisional proceedings pending before the Commissioner child not be deemed to have been transferred to the Majlis‑e‑Shoora. The learned Judges also took the view that as the petitioner had himself invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner, he cold not be heard to contend that this officer lacked jurisdiction to deal with the same.

In seeking eave to appeal, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the earned Judges in the High Court were in error in thinking that the Majlis had not been properly constituted; or that, at any rate, the proceedings did not stand transferred to the Majlis on account of the enfacement of the aforesaid Regulation with effect from the 18th of February, 1977. The learned counsel contends that there is authority for the view that even if the petitioner had himself filed the revision petition before the Commissioner in accordance with the law then applicable, he could not be estopped from raising the question of jurisdiction if a change had been brought about by subsequent legislation, which took away the jurisdiction from the Commissioner.

It is further contended that the decree passed against the petitioner in not based on any evidence, and it ignores the second Fatwa given by Maulvi Muhammad Jan, and proceeds on the basis of the earlier Fatwa given by another Maulvi to whom the matter had been referred at the instance of the respondents.

As the question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner after the constitution of the Majlis‑e‑Shoora is of considerable public importance we grant leave to appeal.

Security for costs shall he furnished in the sum of Rs.2,000.

The petitioner s possession over the disputed land shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the appeal.

M. I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.