| Case ID |
00d09fab-43bc-45a4-9e77-315390951c7d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
132 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 13, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, presided over by Justices Muhammad Sheraz Kiani and M. Tabbassum Aftab Alvi, dismissed the review petition No. 132 of 2017 filed by Mujahid Hussain Naqvi. The court held that the petitioner did not invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court with clean hands and was rightfully imposed special costs of Rs.50,000. The review petition lacked any apparent mistake or error on the face of the record and did not fall within the scope of Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with Rule 43 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984. Additionally, the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of illegality in the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2017. The court emphasized that review petitions are limited to correcting clear errors and cannot adjudicate on matters already conclusively resolved. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to comply with the payment of special costs within the stipulated timeframe, failure of which would result in further legal action. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Review Petition No. 132 of 2017, the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K) delivered a pivotal judgment on November 13, 2017. The petitioner, Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, challenged the impugned judgment dated June 8, 2017, seeking the reinstatement and payment of special costs. Represented by Advocate Syed Zulqarnain Raza Naqvi, the petitioner failed to present his case effectively during the scheduled hearings in September and October 2017, opting instead for a frivolous verbal hearing application. The court, under the esteemed leadership of Justices Muhammad Sheraz Kiani and M. Tabbassum Aftab Alvi, meticulously analyzed the merits of the petition against prevailing legal frameworks, notably the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, and the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908).
The crux of the matter revolved around whether the petitioner had a valid ground for a review petition. The court observed that the petitioner did not invoke the High Court's jurisdiction with clean hands, a fundamental prerequisite for such petitions. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any apparent mistake or error on the face of the record as mandated by Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Rule 43 of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984. The absence of any illegality in the impugned judgment and the limited scope of review petitions were decisive factors leading to the dismissal of the case.
The judgment also referenced precedents such as Muhammad Ramzan v. Lahore Development Authority and Akhtar Ali Khan v. Dilawar Khan et al., reinforcing the court's stance on the stringent criteria governing review petitions. The petitioner’s attempt to unlawfully reinstate himself through manipulative bureaucratic channels was deemed inadmissible, resulting in the imposition of special costs amounting to Rs.50,000. The court underscored the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the sanctity of judicial decisions, thereby setting a significant precedent in AJ&K's judicial landscape.
This decision not only reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal standards but also serves as a deterrent against frivolous legal maneuvers aimed at subverting due process. Legal practitioners and entities involved in similar litigations can draw valuable insights from this case, emphasizing the necessity of robust legal representation and adherence to procedural mandates. The involvement of high-ranking officials such as the Chief Secretary and the Advocate General further highlights the case's significance in the administrative and legal framework of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. For those navigating the complexities of civil procedure and review petitions, this judgment offers a clear directive on the indispensable criteria required for the successful lodging of such petitions, ensuring that the judicial process remains both fair and uncompromising. |
| Court |
High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Prime Minister,
Chief Secretary,
Muzaffarabad,
Supreme Court,
Azad Government of the Jammu and Kashmir,
Secretary Services and General Administration Department
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD SHERAZ KIANI, JUSTICE,
M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, CHIEF JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Zulqarnain Raza Naqvi, Advocate,
Ikhlaq Hussain Kiani, AAG
|
| Petitioners |
Mujahid Hussain Naqvi
|
| Respondents |
AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY/SECRETARY SERVICES AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, MUZAFFARABAD AND 4 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 524,
2018 CLC 502
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Ramzan v. Lahore Development Authority, Lahore 2002 SCMR 1336,
Akhtar Ali Khan v. Dilawar Khan and 5 others 2015 CLC 872 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
43,
1
|