Question of law

  1. A mixed question of law and fact should be specifically pleaded by the parties before the lower Courts. Deputy Collector Excise v. Abdul Hamid 1993 SCR 363 (E)
  2. Law points of public importance or points relating to jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Muhammad Akram  v. Azad J & K Govt 1993 SCR 259 (A)
  3. Laches — Point being purely of legal nature allowed to be raised before this Court. Saleem Akther v. Judge Family Court & 2 others 1997 SCR 381 (D)
  4. Law point can be raised at any time if the same does not need any detailed investigation. Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani v. AJK Govt. and 4 others 1997 SCR 389 (A)
  5. Necessary party — Point was neither raised in appeal nor in the concise statement — Goes to the root of the case — Allowed to be raised for the first time in this Court. Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani v. AJK Govt. and 4 others 1997 SCR 389 (B)
  6. Whether a document is admissible in evidence or not is a question of law and could be considered by this Court. Mahmood Akhtar Kiani v. AJ&K Govt. and 3 others 1998 SCR 310 (A)
  7. Court is obliged to resolve such questions of law and facts which are pleaded by the parties. Ehtesab Bureau AJ&K v. Muhammad Hanif 2004 SCR 284 (C)
  8. Pure question of law can be determined on the basis of pleadings of the parties and documents attached thereto without recording the evidence — While  other type of questions may be mixed questions of law and facts which require resolution after recording of evidence and it is difficult to resolve mixed question of law without recording evidence — Held: A substantial question of law once decided by the Court attains finality due to reason that it was not challenged in higher forum and the parties are precluded from challenging the same at the subsequent stage. Shoukat Usman v. United Bank Limited and 6 others 2010 SCR 173 (C)
  9. “Unavoidable circumstances” — Whether constitutes question of law or not — It is pertinent to note that “unavoidable circumstances” may be a question of law but no explanation of “unavoidable circumstances” was furnished nor any documentary evidence was filed along with the appeal wherefrom it could be born out that the appellants were precluded from filing the return and depositing the tax due to “unavoidable circumstances”. M/S Amin Spinning Mills v. Deputy Collector Central Excise & another 2011 SCR 196 (B)
  10. —Question of law raised for the first time can be considered and resolved by Supreme Court. Muhammad Javiad v. Director Sericulture & others 2022 SCR 293 (C) 1999 SCR 119 ref
error: Content is protected !!