| Case ID |
410eb8b2-4b4a-4d8f-a641-5a05841bdb29 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.558 of 2002 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 08, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal brought forth by Umar Baz Khan, declaring it without merit. The court meticulously examined the arguments presented by both the appellants and respondents, addressing issues related to the Constitution of Pakistan, the Transfer of Property Act, and the Frontier Crimes Regulations. The judges emphasized that procedural rules, such as the non-payment of costs and the doctrine of laches, should not override considerations of justice and equity. They highlighted that the mortgagor acted in good faith by attempting to redeem the property within the stipulated period and that dismissing the petition on technical grounds would perpetuate injustice. The court also clarified that the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulations did not retroactively affect the proceedings already undertaken under its provisions. Ultimately, the judgment upheld the decision of the Peshawar High Court, restoring the order that favored the mortgagor's right to redeem the mortgaged property. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Civil Appeal No.558 of 2002, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on January 8, 2013, the court addressed critical issues surrounding constitutional petitions, mortgage redemption, and procedural fairness under the Frontier Crimes Regulations. The appellant, Umar Baz Khan, challenged the Peshawar High Court's decision that favored Syed Jehanzeb and others, asserting that procedural lapses, including non-payment of costs and delays amounting to laches, warranted dismissal of his petition. The Supreme Court, however, meticulously analyzed the interplay between procedural rules and substantive justice, emphasizing that rigid application of procedural norms should not overshadow equitable considerations. The bench, comprising Justices Anwar Zaheer, Jamali, Tariq Parvez, and Ejaz Afzal Khan, underscored that the mortgagor's proactive efforts to redeem the property within the contractual timeframe demonstrated good faith, thereby negating claims of laches. Furthermore, the court clarified that the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulations did not invalidate ongoing proceedings conducted under its aegis, reinforcing the principle that substantive justice takes precedence over procedural technicalities. Citing pivotal cases such as Malang Dad v. Mst. Mah Pari and others and Pakistan Posts Office v. Settlement Commissioner and others, the Supreme Court reinforced the notion that procedural oversights should be addressed without compromising the fundamental rights of the parties involved. The judgment not only upheld the mortgagor's right to redemption but also set a precedent for balancing procedural adherence with the overarching quest for justice. This decision is instrumental for legal practitioners and scholars, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to equitable resolutions and the protection of legitimate rights against procedural impediments. By meticulously dissecting the arguments and reinforcing the supremacy of justice and equity, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reaffirmed its pivotal role in upholding the rule of law, ensuring that legal processes serve their true purpose of delivering fair and just outcomes. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Assistant Political Officer,
Assistant Collector 1st Grade Malakand Agency, Dargai,
Commissioner, Malakand Division, Saidu Sharif Swat,
Deputy Secretary-III Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar
|
| Judges |
ANWAR ZAHEER,
JAMALI,
TARIQ PARVEZ,
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Qazi M. Anwar,
Syed Safdar Hussain,
Gulzarin Kiyani,
M.S. Khattak,
Nemo
|
| Petitioners |
UMAR BAZ KHAN
|
| Respondents |
Syed JEHANZEB and others
|
| Citations |
2012 SLD 1118,
2012 PLD 268
|
| Other Citations |
Malang Dad v. Mst. Mah Pari and others PLD 1993 SC 6 rel.,
Ambubai Hanmantrao v. Shankarsa Naqosa AIR 1925 Bom.272(1),
Guran Ditta Mal and others v. Banna Mal (deceased) through Sain Dass and others AIR 1958 Punjab 469 (V 45 C 138),
Haji Abdul Rashid Sowdaqar v. S.M. Lalita Roy and others PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 287,
Sardar Nawab Haji Muhammad Khan v. Additional Commissioner and Commissioner, Frontier Crimes Regulation, Quetta Division, Quetta and others PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lah. 401,
Abdul Samad and others v.Painda Muhammad and others PLD 1997 Pesh. 35,
Dharba Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Calcutta AIR (34) 1947 Mad. 51,
F.X.D. Pinto and another v. Sheenappa Malli and others AIR (38) 1951 Madras 524,
Manik Chand Raut. v. Baldeo Chaudhary and others AIR (38) 1951 Patna 327,
Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Sardar Begum and 12 others 1992 SCMR 417,
National Bank of Pakistan v. Taj Muhammad (PLD 1984 Lah. 417),
Chairman, District Screening Committee v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi (PLD 1976 SC 258),
Pakistan Posts Office v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1987 SCMR 1119),
Masood Begum through Legal Heirs v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Forest, Lahore and 9 others PLD 2003 SC 90
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan,
Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
Frontier Crimes Regulations, 1901,
Oaths Act, 1873
|
| Sections |
Art. 199,
Section 60,
Section 58(c),
Regulation 8
|