DOCSLIB.ORG

PLD 2001 Supreme Court 518 Present

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PLD 2001 Supreme Court 518 Present P L D 2001 Supreme Court 518 Present: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, JJ QAMAR-UD-DIN---Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others---Respondents Civil Petition No.718 of 2000, decided on 2nd February, 2001. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 1-3-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in W.P. No. 1726 of 1999). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------ ----O. VI, R.17---Pleadings, amendment of---Scope---Amendment can be allowed at any stage, in such manner and on such terms, which may be equitable and just for contesting parties---Reasonable ground, however, has to be shown for exercising jurisdiction under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)---- ----S. 13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.17 & S.35--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Pre-emption suit---Amendment of pleadings for rectification of typing/clerical mistake---Date of knowledge of sale was inadvertently written in the plaint whereas the correct date was mentioned in the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad---Pre-emptor filed application for correction of the date and the same was allowed by Trial Court against costs---Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the said order of Trial Court---Order of Lower Appellate Court was assailed in Constitutional petition wherein High Court allowed the amendment but the costs fixed by Trial Court was enhanced from Rs.1,000 to Rs.10,000--Validity---Ex facie the amendment was to rectify the typing/clerical mistake and was rightly allowed by the Trial Court on payment of costs---Lower Appellate Court by setting aside the order of Trial Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction had committed serious illegality of the nature which could have the effect of depriving the legitimate right of a par y---Leave to appeal was refused. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Order passed in revision petition by Appellate Court below assailed in Constitutional petition---Validity---Merely because revision was decided, the same would not by itself be a bar for aggrieved party to file Constitutional petition in High Court for seeking complete justice---Exercise of such jurisdiction de ends solely upon the merits of each case. Noor Muhammad v, Sarwar Khan and 2 others PLD 1985 SC 131 and ass an Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam PLD 1991 SC 65 ref. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Malik Ilyas Khan Tamman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd February, 2001. JUDGMENT NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner Qamar-ud-Din, has impugned judgment dated 1-3-2000 of a learned Judge in Chamber, Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby Writ Petition No. 1726 of 1999 was allowed. 2. It is a pre-emption matter relating to Ian measuring 35 Kanais and 13 Marlas, situated in village Kot Shera, Tehsil Talagang, District Chakwal, V6hulam Mohi-ud-Din and Muhammad Hussain, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively filed a suit for possession through right of Pre-emption before learned Civil Judge, First Class, Talagang against Qamar-ud-Din, petitioner, Muhammad Din respondent No. 1/rival pre-emptor also brought such suit against petitioner. The matter was contested by the parties. It is alleged that after 3 years and 6 months respondent No. 1, moved an application, under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint, alleging that due to inadvertence the date of knowledge was shown as 5-1-1995 instead of 28-12-1994 and the latter date was clearly mentioned in the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad. It was sent to the vendee i.e. the petitioner. Learned trial Court vide order dated 6-11-1998 allowed amendment, subject to the payment of Rs.1,000 as costs. 3. The petitioner and respondent No.2 through separate Civil Revisions challenged above order before learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal, who, vide order dated 7-5-1999, allowed revision applications and set aside the order of trial Court. 4. Thereafter, writ petition was filed by the respondent No. l and it was accepted by High Court with the following observations:-- "A perusal of the record reveals that sale took place on 28-12-1994 vide Mutation No .2235. Notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was issued to the vendee on 5-1-1995 a copy of which has been annexed with this writ petition. A perusal of this notice clearly shows that plaintiff/petitioner has stated therein that he came to know about this sale on 28-12-1994. This notice was drafted on 5-1-1995. It appears that while drafting the plaint the learned Advocate gave the date of knowledge as.5-1-1995 as the said date appeared in the end of that notice. Had the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad not been annexed with the plaint containing date of knowledge as 28-12-1994, it could be said that amendment had been allowed without any justification. This nonce of Talb-i-Ishhad dated 5-1-1995 starts from the very fact that plaintiff/petitioner had come to know about this sale on 28-12-1994. Since the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was drafted on 5-1-1995 so while drafting the plaint the said date has been mentioned therein. This being the factual position, the trial Court was justified in granting the said amendment vide order dated 6-11-1998. The revisional Court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law while passing impugned order dated 7-5-1999. Accordingly writ petition is accepted and order dated 7-5-1999 is set aside and order dated 6-I1-1998 passed by the trial Court is hereby restored. Since the petition seeking amendment has been moved with a delay of 3 years and 6 months, so the cost of Rs.1,000 is enhanced Rs.10,000. " 5. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the impugned order of High Court is against the established judicial norms and once matter was decided by learned Additional District Judge, while exercising revisional jurisdiction it could not be reopened. Learned counsel also argued that since it was not shown that revisional order was without lawful authority and jurisdiction, High Court was not justified to reverse the findings of the revisional Court. In support of above contentions, reliance is placed upon cases reported as:-- (1) Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others PLD 1985 SC 131, and (2) Hassan Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam PLD 1991 SC 65. b. In case of Noor Muhammad, it was held that there was an increasing tendency to file Constitutional petitions even when the Courts, whose orders were challenged, had the jurisdiction to pass those orders. Further, it was observed that so was done notwithstanding the fact that where the Court has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it can do so rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that the decision on a question of fact or law is not correct, does not necessarily render it without lawful authority and certainly not illegal. 7. In the case reported as Hassan Din, leave to appeal was granted to examine, whether the decision of this Court in above-referred Noor Muhammad case did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction with an order passed by the District Judge under subsection (2) of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the effect of the judgment delivered in Noor Muhammad case is not that a Constitutional petition is in no case permissible whatever the nature of the . defect in 'the proceedings before District Judge be. Further, it was observed that a mere illegality committed with jurisdiction shall not be a ground for entertaining a Constitutional petition, 8. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noted that amendment in pleading can be allowed at any stage, in such manner and on such terms, Which may be equitable and just for the contesting parties. Of course for A` exercising jurisdiction, as above, a reasonable ground always has to be shown. It is not disputed that in the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad dated 5-1-1995, it was clearly stated that the petitioner had come to know about the sale on 28-12-1994. Ex facie it was typing/clerical mistake and was rightly allowed to be rectified by trial Court on payment of costs, which was further enhanced by High Court from Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand) to Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousands). Revisional Court by setting aside the order of trial Court had committed serious illegality of the nature, which could have the effect of depriving the legitimate right of a party. Merely because revision was decided, it would not by itself be a bar for an aggrieved party to file writ for peeking complete justice in appropriate cases, which of course will depend upon the sole merits of each case. 9. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Q-8/S Appeal dismissed. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building Judicial Independence in Pakistan
    BUILDING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN PAKISTAN 10 November 2004 Asia Report N°86 Islamabad/Brussels TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 II. THE STRUCTURE AND HISTORY OF PAKISTAN'S JUDICIARY.................... 2 A. THE STRUCTURE OF PAKISTAN'S JUDICIARY ............................................................................2 B. COURTS AND POLITICS: PRE-1999 ENTANGLEMENTS.........................................................3 C. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE 12 OCTOBER 1999 COUP ..................................................5 III. JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS ............................................... 6 A. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.....................................................................................6 B. APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS IN PRACTICE..................................................................8 C. REFORMING THE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION OF JUDGES ...........................................11 IV. THE REMOVAL OF JUDGES................................................................................... 12 A. MEANS OF REMOVING JUDGES............................................................................................12 B. REFORMING REMOVALS AND STEMMING CORRUPTION.......................................................13 C. "ADDITIONAL" HIGH COURT JUDGES ..................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Constitutional Law SPRING 2012
    Comparative Constitutional Law SPRING 2012 PROFESSOR STEPHEN J. SCHNABLY Office: G472 http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~schnably/courses.html Tel.: 305-284-4817 E-mail: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS: TABLE OF CONTENTS Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 .................................................................1 Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26. An Act respecting the Supreme Court of Canada................................................................................................................................11 INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) .............................................................................................12 Kenya Timeline..............................................................................................................................20 Laurence Juma, Ethnic Politics and the Constitutional Review Process in Kenya, 9 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int’l L. 471 (2002) ..........................................................................................23 Mary L. Dudziak, Working Toward Democracy: Thurgood Marshall and the Constitution of Kenya, 56 Duke L.J. 721 (2006)....................................................................................26 Laurence Juma, Ethnic Politics and the Constitutional Review Process in Kenya, 9 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int’l L. 471 (2002) .......................................................................................34 Migai Akech, Abuse of Power and Corruption in Kenya: Will the New Constitution Enhance Government
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 SCMR 1824.Pdf
    TaxHelpline Case No. 153 of 2004 Supreme Court of Pakistan Cr. Petitions Nos.21 and 22/K of 2003, heard on 13th April, 2004 Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Wajahat Niaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents THE STATE through Prosecutor-General, National Accountability Bureau---Petitioner Vs Agha WAZIR ABBAS and another---Respondents ORDER NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C J.-----The Stale through Prosecutor-General, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), petitioner (in both petitions) has impugned the judgment, dated 8- 2-2003 of a learned Division Bench, High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Criminal Accountability Appeals Nos.31 and 32 of 2002 were allowed and the respondents in both petitions were acquitted of the Reference filed against them, under section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and the sentences of seven years' R.I. and fine of Rs.25,00,000 each or in default thereof three years' S.I. and disqualification for a period of ten years from holding any representative office/office in the service of Pakistan, were set aside and they were ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 2. The prosecution case against respondent Agha Wazir Abbas, an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer in the Excise Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and respondent Abdul Hameed, Manager of Messrs Standard Wine Company (Pvt.) Ltd. was that they along with the absconding accused, namely, Riaz Hassan Khoso, Abdul Razzak Abbasi, Asif Ikhlaq Ahmed and Saleh Muhammad Rahu were guilty of forging import and transport permits, evasion of vend fee and fee of cess charged on transport permits for the disposal of liquor, thereby caused loss of Rs.38,287,290 to the public exchequer.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Shariʿa the Politics of Islamic Judicial Review by Shoaib
    Defining Shariʿa The Politics of Islamic Judicial Review By Shoaib A. Ghias A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and Social Policy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Malcolm M. Feeley, Chair Professor Martin M. Shapiro Professor Asad Q. Ahmed Summer 2015 Defining Shariʿa The Politics of Islamic Judicial Review © 2015 By Shoaib A. Ghias Abstract Defining Shariʿa: The Politics of Islamic Judicial Review by Shoaib A. Ghias Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and Social Policy University of California, Berkeley Professor Malcolm M. Feeley, Chair Since the Islamic resurgence of the 1970s, many Muslim postcolonial countries have established and empowered constitutional courts to declare laws conflicting with shariʿa as unconstitutional. The central question explored in this dissertation is whether and to what extent constitutional doctrine developed in shariʿa review is contingent on the ruling regime or represents lasting trends in interpretations of shariʿa. Using the case of Pakistan, this dissertation contends that the long-term discursive trends in shariʿa are determined in the religio-political space and only reflected in state law through the interaction of shariʿa politics, regime politics, and judicial politics. The research is based on materials gathered during fieldwork in Pakistan and datasets of Federal Shariat Court and Supreme Court cases and judges. In particular, the dissertation offers a political-institutional framework to study shariʿa review in a British postcolonial court system through exploring the role of professional and scholar judges, the discretion of the chief justice, the system of judicial appointments and tenure, and the political structure of appeal that combine to make courts agents of the political regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2011
    2012-14 ANNUAL REPORT Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Supreme Court Building, Constitution Avenue, Islamabad THE ANNUAL REPORTS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE COMMISSION’S WEBSITE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE COMMISSION’S SECRETARIAT AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: LAW AND JUSTICE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN SUPREME COURT BUILDING CONSTITUTION AVENUE ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN TEL: 092-51-9208752 FAX: 092-51-9214797 092-51-9214416 EMAIL: [email protected] WEBSITE: www.ljcp.gov.pk TABLE OF CONTENTS S. # CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER Foreword Introduction 1. Profiles of Chairmen and Members of Law and Justice Commission 6 of Pakistan 1.1 Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, 6 Chief Justice of Pakistan 1.2 Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, 9 Chief Justice of Pakistan 1.3 Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk 17 Chief Justice of Pakistan 1.4 Mr. Justice Agha Rafiq Ahmed Khan 18 Chief Justice, Federal Shariat Court 1.5 Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza 20 Chief Justice, Federal Shariat Court 1.6 Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 21 Chief Justice, Lahore High Court 1.7 Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 22 Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh 1.8 Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 23 Chief Justice, Peshawar High Court 1.9 Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 24 Chief Justice, Lahore High Court 1.10 Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa 25 Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan 1.11 Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar, 26 Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh 1.12 Mr. Justice Mian Fasih-ul-Mulk 27 Chief Justice, Peshawar High Court 1.13 Mr. Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi 28 Chief Justice, Islamabad High Court 1.14 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 5 Sindh
    Environmentalw ain Pakistan L Governing Natural Resources and the Processes and Institutions That Affect Them Part 5 Sindh Environmental Law in Pakistan Governing Natural Resources and the Processes and w in Pakistan Institutions That Affect Them Sindh Contents Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction to the Series .................................................................................................... 6 Foreword................................................................................................................................ 7 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 9 1. Legislative Jurisdiction ............................................................................................ 10 1.1 Natural Resources .....................................................................................................................10 1.2 Processes and Institutions.........................................................................................................12 2. Methodology.............................................................................................................. 18 3. Hierarchy of Legal Instruments ............................................................................... 19 3.1 Legislative Acts..........................................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • P L D 2004 Supreme Court 394 Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui
    P L D 2004 Supreme Court 394 Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ KARL JOHN JOSEPH---Petitioner Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 108-K of 2003, decided on 6th February, 2004. (On appeal from the judgment/order of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, dated 18-12-2003, passed in Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2003). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)----- ----S. 9(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---Explanation furnished by the prosecution being convincing and natural, non-joining of private persons as Mashirs of recovery was of no consequence---Case of accused was distinguishable from that of acquitted co-accused as according to prosecution version the boat from which "Charas" was recovered belonged to the accused and not to the said co-accused---High Court had considered the case in its proper perspective without any misreading or non-reading of the material and the impugned judgment was- based on proper appreciation of facts and law---Requirement-of search warrant could be dispensed with if the same could not be possibly obtained from the Court before conducting the search ---A.N.F. Officials, in the circumstances of the case, could not obtain the search warrants from the Court and the complainant, therefore, was competent to search the boat without search warrant---Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances. Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCMR 36 ref. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-- ----S 20---Issuance of search warrants---Provisions of S.20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, non-compliance thereof cannot be considered a strong ground for making the trial of accused bad in the eye of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015–2016
    SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN ANNUAL REPORT June 2015 - May 2016 ANNUAL REPORT June 2015 - May 2016 Supreme Court of Pakistan ANNUAL REPORT June 2015 - May 2016 Supreme Court of Pakistan Constitution Avenue, Islamabad Ph: 051-9220581-600 Fa x: 051-9215306 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.supremecourt.gov.pk Branch Registry Lahore Nabha Road. Ph: 042-99212401-4 Fax: 042-99212406 Branch Registry Karachi MR Kiyani Road. Ph: 021-99212306-8 Fax: 021-99212305 Branch Registry Peshawar Khyber Road. Ph: 091-9213601-5 Fax: 091-9213599 Branch Registry Quetta High Court of Balochistan Building Quetta. Ph: 081-9201365 Fax: 081-9202244 Published by: Supreme Court of Pakistan Compiled & edited by: Khawaja Daud Ahmad, Additional Registrar (Administration) Saleem Ahmad, Librarian, Supreme Court of Pakistan ii Supreme Court of Pakistan ANNUAL REPORT June 2015 - May 2016 CONTENTS 1. Foreword by the Chief Justice of Pakistan 1 2. Registrar’s Report 2 3. Profile of the Chief Justice and Judges 5 3.1 Profile of the Chief Justice of Pakistan 6 3.2 Profile of Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 7 3.3 Chief Justices & Judges Retired During June 2015 to 34 May 2016 4. Supreme Court of Pakistan 35 4.1 Introduction 36 4.2 Seat of Supreme Court 37 4.3 Branch Registries 37 4.4 Supreme Court Composition, June 2015 to May 2016 39 4.5 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 40 4.6 Procedure for the Appointment of Judges of the 42 Supreme Court of Pakistan 4.7 Judicial Commission of Pakistan 43 4.8 Composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan 45 4.9 Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2010 45 4.10 Oath of Office 46 4.11 The Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan 47 4.12 Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and 48 the High Courts 4.13 The Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry, 50 2005 4.14 Supreme Judicial Council – Reference No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Failure of Reform in Uzbekistan: Ways Forward For
    BUILDING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN PAKISTAN 10 November 2004 Asia Report N°86 Islamabad/Brussels TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 II. THE STRUCTURE AND HISTORY OF PAKISTAN'S JUDICIARY.................... 2 A. THE STRUCTURE OF PAKISTAN'S JUDICIARY ............................................................................2 B. COURTS AND POLITICS: PRE-1999 ENTANGLEMENTS.........................................................3 C. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE 12 OCTOBER 1999 COUP ..................................................5 III. JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS ............................................... 6 A. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.....................................................................................6 B. APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS IN PRACTICE..................................................................8 C. REFORMING THE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION OF JUDGES ...........................................11 IV. THE REMOVAL OF JUDGES................................................................................... 12 A. MEANS OF REMOVING JUDGES............................................................................................12 B. REFORMING REMOVALS AND STEMMING CORRUPTION.......................................................13 C. "ADDITIONAL" HIGH COURT JUDGES ..................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2003
    Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2003 THIS PAGE BLANK Supreme Court of Pakistan Annual Report 2003 c 2004 National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee This Annual Report is published by the Secretariat of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan. This report can be viewed at the Supreme Court website http://www.scp.com.pk as well as at the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan webste http://www.ljcp.com.pk. Comments and suggestions may be sent to the Secretariat of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, Supreme Court Building, Islamabad. Tel: 051-9220483, 051-9214797 Fax: 051-9214416 email: [email protected]. Contents 1 FOREWORD BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN 1 2 THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 5 2.1 Introduction ........................................ 5 2.1.1 The Supreme Court of Pakistan ......................... 5 2.1.2 Construction of Phase II of Supreme Court Building at Islamabad ...... 6 2.1.3 Registry Building, Peshawar ........................... 6 2.1.4 Automation Plan ................................. 6 2.2 Jurisdiction of the Court ................................. 7 2.2.1 Original Jurisdiction ............................... 7 2.2.2 Appellate Jurisdiction .............................. 7 2.2.3 Advisory Jurisdiction ............................... 8 2.2.4 Review Jurisdiction ................................ 8 2.2.5 Appellate Jurisdiction against Judgements of Federal Shariat Court ..... 8 2.2.6 Power to Transfer Cases ............................. 8 2.2.7 Decision of the Supreme Court binding on other Courts ............ 8 2.2.8 Issue and Execution of Process of the Supreme Court ............. 9 2.2.9 Rule Making Powers ............................... 9 2.3 Role and Functions of the Chief Justice ......................... 9 2.4 Seat of the Court and Branch Registries .......................
    [Show full text]
  • General Pervez Musharraf's Executive Assault on Judicial Independence in Pakistan, 35 N.C
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COMMERCIAL REGULATION Volume 35 | Number 2 Article 7 Winter 2010 State of Emergency: General Pervez Musharraf 's Executive Assault on Judicial Independence in Pakistan Taiyyaba Ahmed Qureshi Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Taiyyaba A. Qureshi, State of Emergency: General Pervez Musharraf's Executive Assault on Judicial Independence in Pakistan, 35 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 485 (2009). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol35/iss2/7 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. State of Emergency: General Pervez Musharraf 's Executive Assault on Judicial Independence in Pakistan Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This comments is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol35/iss2/7 State of Emergency: General Pervez Musharraf's Executive Assault on Judicial Independence in Pakistanf I. Introduction ....................................................................... 4 86 II. General Pervez Musharraf s Military Rule ....................... 489 1II. Judicial Independence and Judicial Activism in P akistan .............................................................................. 4 97 A. The Role of the Judiciary in Pakistan's Constitution and Precedents ............................................................. 498 IV. A Weak Foundation: The Supreme Court's Acquiescence to the Article 58(2)(b) Presidential Power. 502 A. Article 58(2)(b): The Presidential Power of Dissolution .................................................................. 502 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Morning Call November 28, 2013 Pakistan Strategy Equities Smooth Transition (Political, Military, Judicial): Confidence Boosters
    Morning Call November 28, 2013 Pakistan Strategy Equities Smooth transition (Political, Military, Judicial): Confidence boosters Chief of Pakistan Army Timely transition of Chiefs (Army, Judicial) to boost investor confidence Name Tenure After a massively successful, and highly smooth, political transition in the history of Gen. Sir Frank Walter Aug'47 - Feb'48 Gen. Douglas David Feb'48 - Jan'51 Pakistan in May’13, the two top as well as the most influential positions of the Field Marshal Ayub Khan Jan'51 - Oct'58 country’s esteemed institutions i.e. Military (Pakistan Army) and Judiciary (the Gen. Muhammad Musa Oct'58 - Sep'66 Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan), have been filled up with no further delays, Gen. Yahya Khan Sep'66 - Dec'71 Gen. Gul Hassan Dec'71 - Mar'72 as were initially feared. This series of smooth flow of democratic transitions should Gen. Tikka Khan Mar'72 - Mar'76 not only boost investor confidence in country’s overall leadership, but also help Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Mar'76 - Aug'88 rebuild the war-torn image of the country, we believe. Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg Aug'88 - Aug'91 Gen. Asif Nawaz Janjua Aug'91 - Jan'93 Any impacts or changes expected on country’s political canvas ahead? Gen. Abdul Waheed Jan'93 - Jan'96 Though done at the last minute, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's move to appoint Gen. Jehangir Karamat Jan'96 - Oct'98 General Raheel Sharif is largely expected to support country’s democratic forces Gen. Pervez Musharraf Oct'98 - Nov'07 Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani Nov'07 - Nov'13 into politics like his predecessor, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who through his Gen.
    [Show full text]