Void Order

  1. Void Order — Limitation — It is not a universal rule that there is no limitation against a void order — Laches — If a person affected by void order but he does not challenge it within reasonable time — the Court may refuse to ignore it — Estopple. Mirza Lal H. v. Custodian 1992 SCR 214 (C)
  2. Locus poenitentiae — An order which is patently illegal or void can be recalled even the same had been acted upon — in such a case principle of ‘and audi alteram partem’ may be violated but it cannot be said that even if an order is illegal, the same cannot be cancelled, rescinded or amended because it has been acted upon — The High Court has taken an erroneous view in issuing an absolute writ which implies that an order which has been acted upon cannot be recalled rescinded or amended even if the same is patently illegal. Dr. Muhammad Sarwar v. Dr. Muhammad Sharif Chatter 1995 SCR 292 (B) 1994 SCR 267, 1989 SCMR 441 referred and relied.
  3. Limitation — Even the void orders are subject to the law of limitation provided the same are challenged by an aggrieved person within a reasonable time. Ghulam v. Member Board of Revenue & others 1995 SCR 355 (A) 1992 SCR 214 relied.
  4. If a person comes to know of a void order which adversely affects him but still he does not challenge it within a reasonable time the Courts may validly refuse to ignore it on the ground of laches, acquiescence or estoppel. Ghulam   v. Member Board of Revenue & others 1995 SCR 355 (B)
  5. Void order must be challenged if it is intended to get rid of its effects. Muhammad Naseer Jahangiri and 13 others  v. Abdus Sami Khan & another 1997 SCR 26 (C)
  6. Allotment was made in favour of a dead person — Order of allotment was a void — No rights flowed in favour of any person. Manzoor Ahmad Butt and 7 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 7 others 1999 SCR 439 (B)
  7. If a person bases his claim on a void order, he is not entitled to any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction.  Abdul Ghaffar Butt and 2 others 2000 SCR 250 (E)
  8. The petitioner slept over the matter, thus their indolence and negligence cannot be excused — Even a void order adversely affecting the interests of a person should be challenged within a reasonable time. M. Ilyas Khan and 5 others v. Muhammad Hafeez Khan and 4 others 2001 SCR 179 (E)
  9. A void order, must be challenged within a reasonable time if it adversely affects the interests of a person. Said Begum v. Punnu Khan 2003 SCR 37 (C) 2001 SCR 179, 1997 SCR 26 and 1995 SCR 355 rel.
  10. It is a celebrated principle of law that if basic order is void all superstructure built upon it is also to be set aside along with basic order — Held: The P.R.T.O. was rightly cancelled by the Custodian. M. Akram & another v. Custodian Evacuee Property and 7 others 2003 SCR 442 (C)
  11. Regular order of promotion was not challenged — The order which was challenged was arrangement of posting — If the regular promotion was void that should have been challenged before the Court — If a void order is not challenged within a reasonable time, the Court may refuse to ignore it on the ground of laches — A void order adversely affecting the interests of a person should be challenged within a reasonable time. Shafqat Hayyat v. Muhammad Shahid Ashraf & 18 others 2005 SCR 57 (B)
  12. Creation of any right or interest — on basis of–According to the celebrated principle of law, void or illegal orders do not create any right or interest in any person. Farkhanda Jabeen v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1362 (B)
  13. Should have been challenged within a reasonable time. Mahmood Ahmed versus Custodian & 10 others. 2016 SCR 90 (B) 1992 SCR 214 rel.
  14.  Challenging of — within reasonable time — A void order is to be challenged within a reasonable time. M. Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (I) 1992 SCR 214 rel.
  15. —limitation—if the judgment and decree is void in the eye of law then the question of limitation can be ignored. Khaliq Nawaz &others v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2017 SCR 1504 (D)
  16. —No benefit can be claimed on the basis of a void order which has been given by bulldozing the relevant rules. Fazal Hussain vs Chief Conservator Forest &  others 2018 SCR 390 (D)
  17. —- M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younis & 6 others 2020 SCR 1 (U) PLD 1958 SC 103, PLD 1985 252 & 2016 SCR 1599 ref
  18. —when the basic proceedings are void, the whole structure falls to the ground— Maroof Begum v. Kasmic Walaz Firm & 83 others  2020 SCR 577 (C)
  19. — It is the celebrated principle of law that when the basic order is void all superstructure built upon it has also to fall to the ground. Sultan Mehmood  Versus Commissioner Mirpur Division & 4 others 2021 SCR 89 (D) 2003 SCR 442 rel.
  20. —A void order has to be challenged within a reasonable time. Deeba Begum Alias Wahiba versus Safia Iqbal & 8 others  2021 SCR 302 (B) 1992 SCR 214 ref.
  21. —Even a void order must be challenged if it is intended to get rid of its effects. Secretary Health & another versus Muhammad Latif & 5 others  2021 SCR  693 (C) 2005 SCR 57 rel.
  22. —Void order should have been challenged before the Court within a reasonable time. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi  v. Raja Waseem Younas & other 2022 SCR 1 (G)
  23. —limitation for challenging the void order— if the appellant is successful in establishing the fact that the allotment and PRTOs, are ab-initio void, then too the appellant should have challenged the same within a reasonable time. Muhammad Latif v. Shahzad Khan & others  2022 SCR 1448 (B) 1992 SCR 214 rel.
  24.  — if any void order is passed, it must be challenged within a reasonable time if it adversely affects the interests of a person/ party. Fiyaz Haider Nawabi v. Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 128 (B)
  25. — order/ judgment without jurisdiction — Held: when a suit is brought and determined in a Court which has no jurisdiction in the matter, the judgment thus delivered, is considered void. Muhammad Rasheed Khan v. Zia-ur-Rehman & others 2023 SCR 164 (B) 2006 PLC(CS) 955 & PLD 2004 Kar. 652 ref.
  26. — void judgment of Court — setting aside of — jurisdiction of Supreme Court — Muhammad Rasheed Khan v. Zia-ur-Rehman & others 2023 SCR 164 (A) PLD 2006 Kar. 678 ref.
  27. — review before Custodian — contention that allotment permit and PRTO are void orders and there is no limitation for challenging the void orders — respondents failed to point out how orders (Supra) are void orders — however held, even a void order has to be challenged within a reasonable time. Tariq Hussain  versus Anwar Begum & others 2023 SCR 870(C & D) 1992 SCR 214 rel.
  28. Tariq Hussain versus Anwar Begum & others 2023 SCR 870 (B)
  29. — Void order has to be challenged within a reasonable time. Muhammad Rasheed Khan & 10 others vs Custodian Evacuee Property 05 others 2024 SCR 187 (C) 1992 SCR 214 rel
error: Content is protected !!