| Case ID |
00adc5a2-b85c-4fe6-9b27-dbafe4d62d98 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 240 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 08, 1974 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 06, 1974 |
| Decision |
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition filed by Ali Muhammad against Makhdoom Sirajul Haq Qureshi. The case revolved around the transfer of a house originally allocated to Abdul Ghafoor, which was later transferred to the respondent based on information provided by him. The petitioner challenged the eviction but failed to contest the validity of the transfer order in the High Court or the Supreme Court. The court emphasized the finality of transfer orders that were neither challenged nor deemed invalid through proper legal channels. It underscored the principles of res judicata, preventing the reopening of settled matters, and highlighted the necessity of litigation to conclude in the public interest. Additionally, the court addressed procedural amendments that empowered single judges to hear and determine appeals, reinforcing the procedural integrity and retroactive application of these rules. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed due to the lack of substantive grounds and proper legal challenges by the petitioner. |
| Summary |
In the pivotal case of Ali Muhammad vs. Makhdoom Sirajul Haq Qureshi, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on April 8, 1974, the court addressed critical issues surrounding property transfer and eviction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1938). The petitioner, Ali Muhammad, sought special leave to appeal against the eviction order that transferred a house from Abdul Ghafoor to Makhdoom Sirajul Haq Qureshi based on contested information provided by the respondent. The case delved into the validity of the transfer order, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and the procedural amendments to the High Court Rules and Orders as amended in 1971.
The Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman and Justices Waheeduddin Ahmed and Salahuddin Ahmed, meticulously examined the petitioner’s failure to challenge the transfer order in a timely and appropriate manner. The court highlighted that the transfer was a past and closed transaction, ultimately emphasizing the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents the reopening of settled matters based on subsequent differing interpretations. Furthermore, the court scrutinized the petitioner’s lack of vested rights to contest the property transfer, as outlined in the Displaced Persons Act, thereby undermining his locus standi.
Legal practitioners Mian Muhammad Shafi and S. Wajid Hussain represented the petitioner, while the respondent was represented by other counsel as indicated. The judges underscored the importance of adhering to procedural protocols and the necessity for litigants to actively participate in legal proceedings to safeguard their interests. The decision reinforced the authority of the Supreme Court in upholding established legal principles and ensuring that public interest prevails by concluding litigation at appropriate stages.
This case serves as a significant reference for understanding the interplay between property laws, procedural justice, and constitutional mandates in Pakistan’s legal landscape. It underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the finality of legal decisions and the imperative for litigants to engage proactively in the judicial process to uphold their rights. The dismissal of the petition reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to procedural integrity and the efficient resolution of disputes, thereby contributing to the stability and predictability of Pakistan’s legal system. Trending keywords such as 'Supreme Court of Pakistan', 'property transfer laws', 'eviction proceedings', 'res judicata', and 'constitutional jurisdiction' are integral to understanding the case's implications in contemporary legal discourse and its relevance in ongoing legal reforms and property law debates in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Settlement Authorities,
Rent Controller,
Settlement Department,
Constitution of Pakistan,
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
High Court of Lahore,
Enforcement Department,
District Judge, Lyallpur
|
| Judges |
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J.,
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED,
SALAHUDDIN AHMED
|
| Lawyers |
Mian Muhammad Shafi,
S. Wajid Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
ALI MUHAMMAD
|
| Respondents |
Makhdoom SIRAJUL HAQ QURESHI
|
| Citations |
1975 SLD 114,
1975 SCMR 33
|
| Other Citations |
Allah Ditta v. Haji Jai Muhammad P 1. D 1974 S C 113
|
| Laws Involved |
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, VI of 1959,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, XXVIII of 1938,
High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, as amended in 1971
|
| Sections |
13B,
185,
Schedule, Part I
|