Remand

  1. Cases can only be remanded if the High Court does not apply its mind to the points raised — Point considered by the High Court — Remand not necessary. Hafiz Textile Mills v. Dy. Collector Excise & Taxation 1992 SCR 44 (E)
  2. The law point raised in reference application- not considered by the High Court- case remanded. Comissioner Income Tax  v. M/s. United Builders 1993 SCR 373 (J)
  3. High Court accepted the appeal on technical ground and not on merits – Disputed questions of fact are involved in this case – This Court does not enter into appraisal of evidence – Case remanded. dministrator Auqaf  v. Ghulam Abbas & others 1994 SCR 119 (B)
  4. Writ filed by appellant should have been admitted for regular hearing and decided in accordance with law. Case remanded to the High Court for further proceedings in accordance to law. Raja Muhammad Asif v. Chairman Municipal Committee Mirpur & others 1994 SCR 167 (C)
  5. Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal on technical ground — Case should have been remanded — Held: In the case where finding can easily be given on the merits of the case the practice has always been to decide it ourselves. Abdul Rashid v. D.E.O. and another 1997 SCR 367 (F)
  6. Limitation — Question of fact and law — Held: The High Court was correct in remanding the case to decide the question after recording the evidence on the point. Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Yousaf Shah and 3 others 1998 SCR 153 (C)
  7. Prevalent practice of this Court is to avoid remand of cases and to decide them if finding can easily be given on merits of the case. The parties have been engaged in litigation for more or less 5 decades. If the case is remanded it will consume another decade — Therefore, it will advance the ends of justice if we decide the case ourselves. Abdul Aziz  v. M. Ashraf  1998 SCR 204 (B)
  8. Decision on merits — Normally case should have been remanded to High Court for decision on merits but it is not in the interest of justice because considerable time would be consumed — Case decided on merits by Supreme Court. — Decision on merits — Normally case should have been remanded to High Court for decision on merits but it is not in the interest of justice because considerable time would be consumed — Case decided on merits by Supreme Court. Boota and another v. Muhammad Sadiq and 4 others 2000 SCR 331 (B)
  9. Criminal case — Motive — Remand of — Held: When other witnesses of recovery and motive were examined by the prosecution the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 5 was not essential. Abdul Aziz  v. Muhammad Lal and 2 others 2000 SCR 375 (B)
  10. It will be of no use to give false hope to a party by remanding the case when conclusion after protracted litigation will be same. Arif Mehboob v. Zahir Ah. alias M. Zahid 2007 SCR 410 (B)
  11. Writ — dismissed — on appeal Court observed that all the questions raised by the appellant in the writ petition are pure legal questions and this Court can resolve the same by itself, but normal practice of this Court is that first there should be wisdom of the High Court on the points — case remanded. Miss Fatiha Shehzadi v. Vice Chancellor AJ&K University 2016 SCR 134 (C)
  12. AJ&K Grant of Khalsa Land (Ground Rent & Lease) Rules, 1985 — Rule 7 — land acquired — lease holder filed reference — decree issued without summoning Azad Govt., the owner — two options left with the Court to remand the case to the Collector for decision afresh after summoning the Azad Govt. or to decide the question ourselves — under Rule 7 the lease-holder has to surrender the land in favour of the Govt., if it is acquired for a  public purpose without any compensation, except the construction raised in it— proved that no construction has been raised — lease holder not  aggrieved — not entitled to maintain reference application — held:  In such state of affairs the remand of case will be an exercise in futility, wastage of time of the Court and money of the parties — lease holder  declared not an aggrieved person to file reference—Further held: reference application was not competent and decree by the Reference Judge is a nullity in the eye of law. Collector land acquisition v. Qamar Abbas Rizvi & 4 others 2016 SCR 114 (G)
  13.  —law is well settled that remand is desirable when recording of fresh evidence is required. Where the Court has already considered the documentary as well as oral evidence then the remand is not desirable. Talib Hussain vs Aurangzeb & others 2018 SCR 1322 (A) 1997 SCR 367 & PLD 1965 SC 434 rel
  14. —Unnecessary remand defeats the right of speedy justice. Talib Hussain vs Aurangzeb & others 2018 SCR 1322] (B)
  15. —writ proceedings—without prior resolution of proposition by the High Court, the direct resolution by this Court may result into miscarriage of justice and depriving the parties of the right of appeal, especially in the cases of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Naeem Akhtar & 3 others 2019 SCR 719 (C)
  16. —land acquisition proceedings—determination of market value—objection that collector not conducted the proceedings according to law—the case may be remanded—Held: after almost a decade period, putting the party into unnecessary agony of litigation is against the nature of justice, especially when both the parties were provided the opportunity of hearing to bring on record the material relating to market value—such like practice of remanding the case has been discouraged— M. Amin & 3 others v.  Azad Govt. & 23 others 2020 SCR 66 (F)
error: Content is protected !!