AJK High Court Procedure Rules, 1984

  1. —Rule 11(2) —cases involving similar or identical points– -to be grouped and heard together— After going through the prayers clauses of all the three writ petitions, it is clear that on the same subject with the same prayers, the respondents filed three different writ petitions. The learned High Court instead of deciding the writ petitions by consolidating in view of the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, decided only one of the writ petitions separately which is not permissible under law. The Case remanded to the High Court to club all writ petitions on same subject and decide afresh AJ&K Environmental Protection Agency & others vs Munawar Iqbal & others 2018 SCR 239 (A)
  2. —R, 11 (2) —Cases involving identical law points are to be placed before the same bench in order to avoid contradictory judgments. Though, there is no expressed provision in the C.P.C. which is applicable to the civil proceedings for consolidation of the suits/petitions involving common question of facts and law, but practice is that under the inherent powers the Courts can consolidate the cases involving identical proposition so that the contradictory judgments may be avoided. Javed Ejaz & others vs Iftikhar Ahmed Khilji & others 2018 SCR 331 (A)
  3. —rule 11(2)—hearing of cases involving similar or identical points—required to be clubbed and heard simultaneously. Exception —Held: as in the other writ petitions pending before the High Court in respect of appointments of the Judges of the High Court this Court has already issued a direction for disposal of writ petitions while specifying the period and it will be difficult for the High Court to decide this writ petition along with others in the period already stipulated. Raja Waseem Younis v. The Chairman AJ&K Council & 5 others 2019 SCR 803 (G)  
  4. —Chapter VIII, Rules 30 to 42—hearing and disposal of writ petition—manner of—The issuance of writ against the government functionaries without having the version of all the necessary parties arrayed in the writ petition is not just, equitable and proper rather is against the principles of fair trial and fair administration of justice— the wisdom behind having the version of other departments is to consider all legal, economic and social consequences of the proposed matter. The version of one or more particular departments may not be in consonance with other departments of the Government, therefore, without having version of all the concerned Government Departments arrayed in the writ petition, issuance of writ is illegal. Secretary Finance Deptt. &others v. Muhammad Rizwan Abbasi & others 2022 SCR 1387 (B)
  5. The High Court correctly came to the conclusion that violation of sub-rule 2 of the rule 32 of the High Court Procedure Rules has been committed because the attested copies of the notification dated 8.10.1998 and the proclamation published were not placed on record — Only the photostat copies of the same were placed on the record — This rule is applicable in writ proceedings. Farooq Ahmad Khan & 2 others  v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2002 SCR 14 (D)
  6. Rule 32 — AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — section 44 — writs — mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo-warranto etc., shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexure if any, shall be appended with the application. Fazal H.(deceased) v. Allah Rakhi & others 2016 SCR 55 (C)
  7. Rule 32 — writ petition — certified copy of the impugned order shall be appended with the writ petition. Fazal Hussain (deceased) & 9 others v. Allah Rakhi & 4 others 2016 SCR 55 (E)
  8. Rule 32 — violation of — Held:  the writ petitions before the High Court have been filed in violation of rule 32 — the certified copies of the appointment order have not been appended, therefore, on the sole ground the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed — The objection regarding non-maintainability of the writ petitions prevail. Muhammad Tahir v. Syed Muhammad Nazar Iqbal & 8 others 2016 SCR 586 (D)
  9. —rule 32—filing of certified copies of order impugned and documents relied upon with writ petition are mandatory in nature—exception to the rule—if impugned order and such documents are admitted by other side—then writ petition cannot be dismissed on technical ground. Syed Masoom Ali Shah vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 1114 (A)
  10.                 —Rule 32—writ—certified copies—admitted documents—Although the u/r 32 furnishing of certified copies or documents is mandatory requirement but if the same is not objected from other side and the documents are admitted the dismissal of writ not justified. Amir Shameem & 23 others v. Azad Government & 11 others 2017 SCR 684 (E)
  11. —Rule 32, AJK High Court Procedure Rules, 1984— the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are applicable to the proceedings of writ petitions. See caption (b) Pleadings. Nabeel Akram v. MDA Mirpur & others 2022 SCR 1630 (D)
  12. — Rule 32(2)—furnishing of certified copies—relates to stage  of presentation of writ— issuing of notices—and before admission of writ for regular hearing—once done the matter of furnishing certified documents is over—-according to the scheme of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, the proceedings in the writ petition  have to be conducted  gradually and step-wise. It appears that the requirement of furnishing of certified copy under Rule 32(2), relates to the stage of presentation of writ petition and once in writ petition, the notices are issued to the parties and the writ petition is admitted for regular hearing, the matter of furnishing certified copy is over. Imtiaz Ahmed & another v. S.S.P. Mirpur & others 2017 SCR 223 (A)
  13. —Rule 32(2)—furnishing of certified copies—required—exceptions to the rule— when documents admitted by other side—No doubt under the provisions of Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rule,  furnishing of certified copies of the impugned order is required but there are some exceptions to this rule. This Court has enunciated the principle of law that when the documents are admitted by the other side, the requirement of furnishing the certified copies is no more required. Ch. Latif Akbar & others v.Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 305 (B) Messrs. Friends Technical & others vs. Barrister Iftikhar Gillani and others (Civil Appeal No. 305/2014 decided on 18.04.2016), Muhammad Riaz Chohan vs. Malik Abdul Rehman and others (Civil Appeal No. 274/2014 decided on 28.10.2016) & Imtiaz Ahmed and another vs. Senior Superintendent Police and others (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2016 decided on 22.12.2016) rel.
  14. — Rule 32 (2)—non-annexing of certified copies of documents— other party admitted the documents—held: the documents once admitted by a party cannot be objected later on by the passage of time. Messers Friends & others v. Barrister Syed Iftikhar Ali Gillani & others 2017 SCR 534 (C)
  15. Rules 32 to 38 — procedure for disposal of writ petition — whenever the writ petition is filed it shall be entrusted to a Judge for disposal by the Chief Justice or he may himself hear the same. The Judge seized with the matter can admit the writ petition for regular hearing without notice to the other party or may issue a notice for preliminary hearing and after admitting the writ petition respondents have to be provided an opportunity for filing the written statement and thereafter, seeking replication, the final arguments on the writ petition shall be heard. Held: the writ petition cannot be finally disposed off without summoning the respondents, without seeking written statement and without hearing the respondents. Mohammad Kamran Idrees v. Sarmad ahmed & 4 others 2014 SCR 473 (A) PLJ 2013 SC AJK 73 ref.
  16. Part-B — Rules 32 to 38 — writs — procedure for filing & disposal of — whenever a writ petition is filed, the bench hearing it, may, issue a notice before the admission to the person affected to show why the petition may not be admitted and fix the date on which the notice is returnable — after admission of the writ petition the respondents shall be provided an opportunity of filing written statement/objections, documents, affidavits etc — an opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner for filing replication. Muhammad Reaz Akhtar Ch. v. Sardar Karam Dad Khan & others 2015 SCR 92 (A) PLJ 2013 SC (AJ&K) 309 rel.
  17. Rules 32 to 38 — writ petitions — scheme of disposal — when a writ petition is admitted for regular hearing a notice shall be issued to the other party and after seeking written statement/objections and providing an opportunity to the petitioner for filing replication, the arguments in the writ be heard and decided. Saadia Shamshad & 2 others v.The Secretary Education & 3 others 2016 SCR 80 (B)
  18. R.32 and 38—writ—grant of final relief without admitting the writ for regular hearing—not recognised by law—no final relief can be granted without admitting the writ petition for regular hearing or providing opportunity of hearing to the contesting party, which is missing in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly argued that the impugned order is passed in violation of rules 32 to 38 of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, writ has been issued in utter disregard of the dicta laid down by this Court, as well as the statutory provisions dealing with the subject-matter. Impugned order of the High Court set aside, cases remanded. Muhammad Sajjad Khan vs Abdul Qadoos Khan & others 2018 SCR 216 (C)
  19. —Part-B—Rules 32 to 38— deal with writs—procedure for filing and disposal of writs—Part-B of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, deals with the writs and under rules 32 to 38, the procedure for filing and disposal of writs is provided. Whenever a writ is filed, the bench seized with the matter may issue a notice before admission of such writ petition, to the persons effected thereby to show that why the petition may not be admitted and fix the date. After admission of the writ petition, the contesting non-petitioners shall be provided an opportunity of filing the written statements/ objections, documents, affidavits, etc, and thereafter, an opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner for filing objection. final disposal of the writ petitions without admitting for regular hearing, without providing opportunity of filing written statement/objections, etc, and without hearing is not recognized by the statutory provisions of law. Muhammad Sajjad Khan vs Abdul Qadoos Khan & others 2018 SCR 216 (B) 2014 SCR 473; 2015 SCR 92 rel.
  20. —Rules 32 to 38—procedure for filing and disposal of writs–whenever a writ is filed, the bench hearing it, may issue a notice before the admission to the person affected that why the petition may not be admitted— after admission, the respondents shall be provided an opportunity of filing written statement/objections, documents, affidavits etc. and thereafter an opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner for filing replication. Raja Najam Dad Khan v. Muhammad Yaseen & others 2022 SCR 98 (A) PLJ 2013 SC (AJK) 309 and 2015 SCR 92 rel.
  21. — Rules 32 to 38 — (Part B) — filing and disposal of writ petitions — rules 32 to 38 provide the procedure for filing and disposal of writs — whenever a writ petition is filed, the bench hearing it, may issue a notice before admission, to the person affected to show why the petition may not be admitted and may fix the date on which the notice is returnable — after admission of writ, the respondents shall be provided an opportunity of filing written statement/objections, documents, affidavits etc. and thereafter, an opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner for filing replication. Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education & others versus Muhammad Rohan & another 2023 SCR 892 (A) PLJ 2013 SC (AJ&K) 309 rel.
  22.  — part B — Rules 32 to 38 — Writ — procedure for disposal — writ issued without admitting the same — held: whenever a writ petition is filed, the bench hearing it, may issue a notice before admission to the person affected to show why the petition may not be admitted and fix the date on which the notice is returnable — after admission of writ, the respondent shall be provided an opportunity of filing written statement/objections, documents, affidavits etc — thereafter an opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner to file replication — case remanded. Raja Hadayat Ullah Khan Rathore vs Ch. Maqbool Hussain & others 2024 SCR 287 (A) PLJ 2013 SC(AJ&K) 309 & 2015 SCR 92 ref.
  23. R. 32(2) — Attested copy — Copy of the impugned order must be attached but the position is different — Averments made by appellant and documents relied upon are admitted from positive side — It was not necessary on the part of appellant to attach with the writ petition the attested copies of the documents especially so when the same were admitted by the respondents. Shahida Khadim v. Secretary Education AJ&K and 5 others 2002 SCR 315 (C)
  24. Rule 32(2) — Respondents invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court without appending with their writ petition certified copies of the orders as required under rules — The formalities which were required to be attended to under rules must be complied with. Shafqat Hayyat v. M. Shahid Ashraf & 18 others 2005 SCR 57 (A) PLJ 2000 SC (AJK) 102 and 1995 SCR 390 relied.
  25. R. 32 (2) — See AJ&K Public Service Commission Act, 1974, S.4. Brig. (Retd.) M. Saeed Akhtar and 8 others v. AJK Govt., through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad 2013 SCR  365 (B)
  26. Rule, 32 (2) —Writ Petitions — mandatory documents — Certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexure if any, in addition to separate copy for each of the respondents, shall be accompanied by the writ petition. Saira Bashir Butt v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR  631 (A)
  27. Rule, 32 (2) — Writ Petitions/applications — the application/petition, apart from setting out the name and description of the applicant, exact nature of the relief sought and the ground on which it is sought, shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexures if any — Held: The filing of certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory — the photocopy cannot be relied upon. Saira Bashir Butt v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR  631 (B)  2003 SCR 260 rel .
  28. R. 33 (2) — Contention that bench was not constituted by the learned Acting Chief Justice, has substance — because every such petition was to be placed for admission before the division bench to be constituted by  the Chief Justice — R. 33(2) provides that the Chief Justice may, if he deems necessary, authorize a Judge sitting alone, to hear such petition for admission — In instant case it was not ordered that the case should be heard by single bench rather the case was heard without constitution of bench. Ch. M. Yasin v. Sardar M. Naeem Khan & 3 others 2010 SCR 17 (I)
  29. Rule 32(2) — it was mandatory for the petitioner to file the certified copies of the impugned notification and the other requisite record, but this provision has not been complied with while filing the writ petition. Held: in such state of affairs, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. M. Sagheer v. Azad Govt. 2016 SCR 1666 (A,B) 2016 CLC 1570 ref.
  30. Rule 32 (2) — parimatria provision — Rule 3, Order, XIII, Supreme Court Rules 1978 — furnishing of certified copy of impugned order is mandatory requirement of the rules. The failure of a party without any legal justification surely results into dismissal of such petition. Held:  in this regard, not only the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 but the parimatria provisions of the Supreme Court Rules 1978 have also been strictly applied by this Court. Ghulam Nabi  & another v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 286 (A) 2002 SCR 14, 2005 SCR 57 & 2015 SCR 126 ref.
  31. قاعدہ (2) 32۔۔۔ ۔فراھمی لازمی ۔۔۔۔ عدم فراھمی ۔۔۔۔ جائزہ عدالتی اہلکارن بوقت دائری لازمی—یا عدالت عدم فراھمی کو حالات و واقعات کے تناظر میں پرکھے۔۔۔جہاں حکم زیر نزاع تسلیم شدہ ہو۔۔۔عدم فراہمی مصدقہ نقل کے سقم کی بنا پر عرضی رد نہ ہو سکتی ہے۔۔قاعدہ (2) 32 قواعد انضابط 1984ء کے تحت مصدقہ نقول حکم زیر نزاع کی فراھمی لازمی ہے لیکن اس قانونی تقاضے کے پیش نظر یا تو دائری کے وقت عدالتی ذمہ داران کو جائزہ لیتے ہوئے اعتراض کرنا چاہیے یا پھر عدالت کو معاملہ کے حالات و واقعات کے تناظر میں یکسو کرنا چاہیئے۔محض تکنیکی وجوہ کی بنیاد پر ہر ایک عرضی کو مسترد نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ بالخصوص معاملہ ہذا میں حکم زیر نزاع ایسا مسلمہ امر ہے جس سے کسی کو انکار نہیں بلکہ ہر دو فریقین نے اس حکم پر انحصار کر رکھا ہے اور جو عدالت العالیہ کے ریکارڈ کا بھی حصہ ہے۔ اس ضمن میں عدالت ہذا کے فیصلہ عنوانی” شاہدہ خادم بنام سیکریٹری تعلیم وغیرہ”(2002 ایس۔سی۔آر صفحہ 315) میں وضع کردہ اصول کا مقدمہ ہذا پر پورے طور پر اطلاق ہوتا ہے۔اس تناظر میں سائلان کی عرضی کو محض اس سُقم کی بناء پر رد نہیں کیا جا سکتا     ۔ احمد نواز تنولی ایڈووکیٹ بنام چیئرمین آزاد جموں و کشمیر کونسل وغیرہ، (ت) 2016 SCR 960  2002 SCR 315 ref
  32. Rule 32 (2) — non-compliance of furnishing of certified copy — effect of — rules not challenged — only direction sought to enforce the rules — the rules published in official gazette and admitted by the other party — facts admitted need not to be proved — objection overruled — The objection regarding non-compliance of Rule 32(2) of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, is concerned, appears to be after-thought. Neither it has been raised before the High Court nor in view of the facts of the case is of much importance. According to the nature of the writ petition a direction is sought and no order or action has been challenged. The prayer of the petitioner was regarding implementation of the Rules which have been published in the official gazette and admitted by the parties. No one has objected to the enforcement or contents of the Rules. The facts admitted need not be proved, thus, in view of peculiar facts of this case there is no violation of Rule 32(2) of the High Court (Procedure) Rules, 1984. Hence, objection has no substance. Javed Iqbal v. Tasadaq Hussain & 9 others 2016 SCR 1589 (B)
  33. Rule 32(2) — writ petitions — non- compliance of Rule — effect of — Rules provides that the writ petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexure if any, in addition to separate copy for each one of the respondents — provisions are mandatory in nature and non-compliance is not permissible — without compliance of Rule 32 — the writ petition is not competent. Maroof Baig v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 1359 (A) 2002 SCR 14 & 2016 SCR 286 Rel.
  34. Rule 34-Before issuing the order of injunction seven days notice to the opposite party is a requirement of the rule-But in emergent cases the High Court can dispense with this requirement or at least curtail the period thereof or alternately the date of hearing should have been fixed earlier. Azad Government v. Chairman M.D.A. and others 1994 SCR 197 (C&D)
  35. Rule 34 — Plain reading of the rule shows that before issuing a stay order a notice of motion of seven days is necessary unless the case is one of emergency — While issuing the stay order it is imperative that the matter is decided after proper application of mind — Three basic principles i.e. (i) prima facie case (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss, should be kept in mind while issuing stay order — To issue a stay order as a matter of routine is not a happy practice. Azad Government and others v. Sardar Pervaiz Khan 1994 SCR 254 (A)
  36. R. 34 — Injunction — Before granting interim relief no notice was issued by the High Court to the other party — Notice dispensation of — Limitation — Held: Party must be heard before passing any order — Violation of rule results in inconvenience to the parties and also interest of justice suffers. Aisha Hameed Qadri v. Nomination Board & 6 others 1997 SCR 1 (A) 1994 SCR 254 relied.  
  37. R. 34 — Violation of — Order passed in violation of rule 34 of AJK High Court Procedure rules and also not showing the reasons why it was necessary to suspend the order passed by learned Mohtasib, not sustainable. Abdul Khalil v. Manzoor Ahmed and 5 others 1997 SCR 85 (A)
  38.  R. 34 — Requires that a notice be issued to respondents before passing any interim order in writ petition — The rule creates an exception in cases of emergent nature that the requirement of issuing notice may be dispensed with. M. Asghar Khan v. M. Hafizullah and others 2000 SCR 291 (A)
  39. Rule 34 — Seven days notice was not issued — The High Court did not pass an order dispensing with the notice — Rule 34 is mandatory — The impugned part of the order of High Court directly in conflict with rule 34 and the authorities of this Court — Set aside — Case remanded — Parties shall appear before High Court on 25.10.2004 — Till that time status quo shall be maintained. Municipal Committee Islamgarh Mirpur v. Akhter Mehmood & 6 others 2005 SCR 15 (A)
  40. R. 34 — 7 days notice of motion is a requirement for filing of stay application by petitioner to the person to be affected by the order — The Court or bench seized with the matter has power to dispense with the requirement of service of notice in emergent cases — Filing of application for dispensation of requirement of R.34 is not at all a condition precedent for the Court to issue an order of interim nature  — Provision of R. 34 is not absolute, as the Court has power to issue interim relief even without passing a separate order — The only condition is that there should be some emergency to dispense with the notice of motion and as to whether the case before it is of emergent nature or not, is to be determined by High Court. AJK Council and 3 others v. Muhammad Ikram and 3 others 2007 SCR 155 (B)
  41. Rule 34 — Dispensation of — When an application for interim relief is moved, no order shall be passed unless and until notice of motion has been served on the other party — However, in emergent cases the Bench may dispense with the notice of motion or curtail the period thereof — It was enjoined upon the Court to state the reasoning for dispensation of rule 34 — Nothing such was done by the learned Judge of the High Court — The order is totally in violation of rule 34 of the High Court Procedure Rules. Rashad Saleem v. Ch. Zafar Iqbal 2009 SCR 18 (D)
  42. R.34 — When an application for stay or interim relief is moved, in such application no order shall be passed unless seven days notice of motion has been served on the person sought to be affected — R.34 contains a proviso that the bench may, in emergent cases, dispense with the notice of motion or curtail the period thereof — The bench can only dispense with rule 34 when it considers that the case is of emergent nature — Held: the learned Acting Chief Justice nowhere dispensed with the application of rule 34 — He was not competent to pass an order for interim relief without seven days notice of motion.Ch. M. Yasin v. Sr. M. Naeem Khan & 3 others 2010 SCR 17 (J)
  43. قواعد 36 ، 38۔۔۔۔ عرضی اجراء پروانہ استفسار۔۔۔باوجود باقاعدہ سماعت کے قابل نہ ہونا۔۔۔متنازعہ امور و طرز مشاورت برائے تقرری ججز عدالت العالیہ۔۔۔۔بے محل و غیر ضروری۔۔۔۔ایسے امور پر رائےزنی تب مناسب جب باقاعدہ سماعت کےلیے منظور ہو۔۔۔۔  تاہم اس امر کا ذکر یہاں ضروری ہے کہ عدالت العالیہ نے عرضی باقاعدہ سماعت کے قابل نہ ہونے کے باوجود متنازعہ امور و طرز مشاورت برائے تقرری ججزعدالت العالیہ پر جو رائے زنی کی ہے، وہ بے محل ہے۔ایسے امور پر رائے زنی یا قرارداد تب ہی ثابت کی جا سکتی ہے جب عرضی باقاعدہ سماعت کے لیے منظور کر لی جائے۔ عبوری آئین ایکٹ 1974ء کی دفعہ 44 کے تحت دائر عرضی ہا کی سماعت کا ایک مخصوص طریقہ کار قواعد انضباط 1984ء میں درج ہے جس کے مطابق عرضی باقاعدہ سماعت کے قابل ہونے کی بناء پر فریقین کو قواعد 36 و 38 کے تحت عدالت نے موقع فراہم کرنا ہوتے ہیں کہ وہ اپنے موقف کی تائید میں  تحریری عذرات، جواب الجواب،بیان حلفی یا دیگر مواد ریکارڈ پر لانا چاہیں تو لاسکیں۔اور اگر عدالت العالیہ مناسب سمجھے تو متنازعہ امور کے تعین کے لیے قاعدہ 38 کے تحت دیگر شہادت یا جو بھی دیگر طریقہ انصاف کے تقاضوں کے مطابق موزوں ہو، اختیار کر سکتی ہے تاکہ فریقین کے حق سماعت کو کسی طور پر مجروح نہ کیا جائے۔ احمد نواز تنولی ایڈووکیٹ بنام چیئرمین آزاد جموں و کشمیر کونسل وغیرہ، (د) 2016 SCR 960 PLJ 2013 SC (AJK) 309 & 2015 SCR 92 ref.
  44. R. 37 — Adding of new party — Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. — Adding of new party in writ petition is permissible — If a person does not fulfil conditions under rule 10(2) he can be heard to oppose the writ petition under rule 37 of High Court Procedure Rules. Muhammad Iqbal v. Khalid Hussain and 7 others 1999 SCR 265 (A)
  45. It is well-entrenched practice that superior Courts decide questions arising in writ petitions on affidavits — U/r. 38 all question in writ petitions be decided upon affidavits, documents or other evidence — Writ in presence of affidavit, could not be dismissed on the ground of documentary proof. Muhammad Azad Khan v. Vice-Chancellor and another 1999 SCR 270 (C)
  46. —rule 38—High Court empowered to liberally adopt or follow procedure—in such manner as may appear to it just—not technically knock out—operation of —commences after stage of rule 32 (2) —High Court may pass order or follow such procedure which appears to it just—-dismissal of writ on sole ground of non-furnishing certified copies after issuance of notices and admitting writ, held not just— for after passing of the stage of furnishing of certified copy, rule 38 comes into operation which empowers the High Court to pass order as it deems fit or follow such procedure as may appear to it to be just. In this case, although the certified copy was not furnished by the petitioners but neither at the stage of presentation of writ petition this deficiency was pointed out nor the learned Judge at two stages i.e., at the time of issuing notices for pre-admission comments and at the time of admission of writ petition for regular hearing, dismissed the writ petition on this ground. Thereafter, when the authenticity of the documents was admitted by the respondents and the certified copy of the impugned FIR was also available, dismissal of writ petition on this sole ground does not appear to be just. Imtiaz Ahmed & another v. S.S.P. Mirpur & others 2017 SCR 223 (B)
  47. —rule 38—under Rule 38, keeping in view the important role of the High Court in relation to writ jurisdiction the High Court is not chained with strict rules rather it is empowered to liberally adopt or follow the procedure for determination of question on such other evidence and in such manner as may appear to it to be just. The basic purpose is to exercise the powers for ends of justice not technically knocking out the party which may result into miscarriage of justice. Imtiaz Ahmed v. S.S.P. Mirpur & others 2017 SCR 223 (C) 2002 SCR 315 & Muhammad Riaz Chohan vs. Malik Abdul Rehman (Civil Appeal No. 274/2014. Decided on 28.10.2016, rel.
  48. —Rule 38—writ— petitioner prayed for summoning the record—dismissed for want of proof—Held: according to the principle of law, the petitioner can only be blamed for failure to produce the record which is in his possession or can be made available by making efforts—where any person despite efforts is not supplied with the record, he cannot be penalized—the High Court for doing complete justice has to exercise powers vested in it u/r 38 to decide the questions on such evidence and in such manner as it may deem fit—the High Court is empowered in such case to follow  such  procedure  or  pass  such  order  as  appears  to  it just. Khrum Shahzad Khan vs Secretary Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & others 2018 SCR 14 (A)
  49. — قاعدہ 38۔۔۔رٹ پٹشن ۔۔۔طریقہ کار نسبت یکسوئی ۔۔۔عمومی قانون کے تحت مئوقف اور اس کی تائید میں مواد اور ریکارڈ پر لانے کی ذمہ داری سائل پر عائد ہوتی ہے لیکن جن معاملات میں حکومتی اداروں کے پاس ریکارڈ ہو اور عام آدمی کی رسائی ممکن نہ ہواور ریکارڈ کی طلبی کی استدعا کی جائے تو عدالت العالیہ کو حالات و واقعات کے تناسب میں مناسب طریقہ کار اپنانا چاہیے ۔قواعد کے تحت عدالت العالیہ کو ایسے امور جو صرف فریقین کے پیش کردہ ریکارڈ یا بیان حلفی ہا تک محدود نہ ہوں کے تعین کے لیے وسیع اختیارات حاصل ہیں ۔قاعدہ 38کے تحت عدالت جس دیگر شہادت یا طریقہ کار کو مناسب سمجھے تو انصاف کے تقاضوں کے مطابق اختیار کر سکتی ہے۔(د)
  50. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Mazhar Ahmed Others 2018 SCR 948
  51. —rule 39—second writ petition —not competent—expectations to rule— See Hamza Rasheed Baig vs Minister Industries & Mineral Department & others 2018 SCR 1052  (A)
  52. R. 42 — writ proceeding — applicability of provisions of CPC — provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable to the writ proceedings — the provisions of CPC shall be applicable as far as practicable. Somia Riaz v. Ammara Shahnawaz & 12 others 2014 SCR 251 (C) PLD 1987 SC (AJK) 127, ref.
  53. Rule 42 — applicability of CPC — writ proceedings — According to Rule 42 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984,  the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, as for as practicable are applicable to the writ proceedings. Azad Govt. & 7 others v. Javed Anwar  2014 SCR 1470 (E)
  54. —Rule 42, AJK High Court Procedure Rules, 1984—Where rules silent about any eventuality, the provisions of CPC, shall apply—non-signing of writ petition and verification by petitioners or their counsel—effect of—the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, are silent about the proposition. However, under rule 42, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall as far as practicable, apply to the proceedings under part B of this Chapter, meaning thereby, the CPC shall apply to the case where no specific rules are available. Muhammad Hafeez & others v. Govt. of AJ&K & others  2022 SCR 1054 (A)
  55. —Rules 42 & 43— Civil Procedure shall be applicable in the writ petitions, as far as practicable, and under Rule 43 a review petition is competent against the judgment of the High Court. Mst. Nighat Srwar v. Mst. Shabana Kausar & others 2017 SCR 158 (A&C)
  56. —Rule 43— CPC— Order XLVII rule 1—u/r 43 the High Court has power to review its judgment on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 CPC— Order XLVII, rule 1, CPC provides, the review on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 153 (A)
  57. R. 43 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss. 42 & 44-A — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.I — Review application — Competence — Procedure — Review application was dismissed on the ground that same was filed without furnishing certificate of Advocate of the Court, which was mandatory under provisions of R. 43 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 — Validity — Application for review, would set-forth the grounds on which a review was sought, plainly and concisely — Application would be signed by a counsel and accompanied by a certificate signed by the Advocate in the form prescribed under R. 43 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 — Embargo had been imposed under said R.43 that no such application would be entertained by the Court without the said certificate — Mandatory requirement of filing a certificate by the Advocate along with the review application had to be fulfilled — If said certificate was not accompanied with the applications for review, the Court would not entertain the application — Position in the present case had become different as the Court had not only entertained the application, but the process was also issued; in pursuance of the process, the other party had entered its appearance, and contested the said review application and after hearing both the parties, impugned judgment was delivered — Once an application for review without the mandatory certificate had been entertained, it would be deemed that the requirement under R.43 had been dispensed with by the Court — High Court, in circumstances, after entertaining the review application, was not justified to dismiss the same on the ground that it was not competent — Court was supposed to look into the application at the filing of the same and if it was found that the requirement of provision had not been fulfilled in the true spirit the Court should have taken notice of the same, but same had not been done — Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and case was remitted back to the High Court with the direction to decide the review application on merits. Abdul Rasheed v. Gul Taj Begum and another 2012 SCR 53 (A&B)
  58. Rule 43 — the limitation Act, 1908, Art. 162 — limitation of review petition before the High Court — against the order passed while exercising the original jurisdiction and extra ordinary writ jurisdiction —   Rule 43 of the High Court Procedure Rules provides the remedy for review of the judgment or order of the High Court, whereas, the limitation for filing the same is 30 days — the order which was under review before the High Court was passed while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, whereas, article 162 of the Limitation Act, 1908 governs the limitation of the cases in which the High Court passed any order while exercising the civil original jurisdiction — Held: If any judgment or order is passed by the High Court while exercising the original civil jurisdiction, then the limitation will be governed under Article 162 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Naik Muhammad v. Azad Govt. & 17 others 2016 SCR 1128 (B)
  59. R. 44 See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K.), S.6. Noor Dad v.Muhammad Rafique 2012 SCR 311         
  60. Under rule 44(2) a party is required to file revision petition within ninety days from the date of the impugned order — If the same is filed beyond that period it has to furnish sufficient cause for condonation of delay — Appellant was not cautious of period of limitation — No ground was taken in revision petition for condonation of delay — Held: The High Court rightly dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation. Umar Zaman v. Manzoor H. & 9 others 2006 SCR 5 (A)
  61. S. 44(2)(A) — The petitioner was required to furnish along with the revision petition certified copies of decree and order sought to be revised — In the same way it was mandatory for the petitioner to file revision petition within 90 days from the date of passing of order. Muhammad Latif  v. Muhammad Azeem Khan & 3 others 2006 SCR 78 (A)
  62. R. 84 — Proving the fact by affidavit — Rule 84 of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Procedure Rules, had postulated that apart from documents, the fact could be proved by affidavit — If a fact could not be proved from the record, a party could prove the same by filing affidavit; and if no counter affidavit was filed, the fact would be deemed to be proved. Ehtezaz Asghar v. Muhammad Sajawal 2012 SCR 297 (C)
  63. Rr. 147, 149, 153 — See Limitation Act, 1908, S. 12(2).Muhammad Saddique Versus Muhammad Aslam and 4 others 2013 SCR 587
  64. High Court — competent Authority — exercise of powers by the Chief Justice — argument that the proceedings initiated by the authority, i.e the Chief Justice High Court are without lawful authority as according to rules, the authority is the High Court and not the Chief Justice alone — Held: on this point, this Court has already after due deliberation concluded that the powers have been delegated to the Chief Justice. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (RR)  2012 PSC 668, rel. 
  65. Writ — Scheme for disposal of — relief prayed for granted without admitting the writ for regular hearing, without providing an opportunity to the respondents for filing objections/written statements and without hearing them — after hearing preliminary arguments, final relief was granted which held: is against the scheme of High Court Procedure Rules, 1984. Muhammad Reaz Akhtar Ch. v. Sardar Karam Dad Khan & others 2015 SCR 92 (B)
  66. فراھمی مصدقہ نقل ۔۔۔ عدم فراھمی مصدقہ نقل ۔۔۔ حکم تقرری مسئولان ۔۔۔ وضاحت سائلان ۔۔۔ غیر معقول اور ناقابل پزیرائی — فریقین نے عدم فراھمی مصدقہ نقول حکم زیر نزاع پر بڑے زوردار دلائل اور قانونی حوالہ جات پیش کیے۔عدالت العالیہ نے بھی اس پہلو کو اہمیت دیتے ہوئےزیر غور لایا ۔مطابق نوعیت معاملہ بتقاضائے آزاد جموں و کشمیر عدالت العالیہ قواعد انضابط کار مجریہ 1984ء حکم تقرری مسئولان 7 و 8 کی مصدقہ نقول کی فراھمی لازمی ہے۔ اس حوالہ سے سائلان کی وضاحت غیر معقول اور ناقابل پزیرائی ہے۔ مشمولہ عرضی نقل حکم زیر نزاع کے مندرجات کے مطابق یہ حکم سرکاری چھاپہ خانہ کو اشاعت گزٹ کے لیے ترسیل ہوا۔یہ قانونی تقاضہ بھی ہے اور عام فہم بات بھی۔ سرکاری گزٹ میں شائع شدہ فرمان حکومت کی نقل حاصل کرنے کی نسبت کسی بھی فرد یا سائلان پر نہ کوئی قدغن ہے اور نہ  ہی کوئی دشواری ہے۔ سائلان نے کہیں بھی یہ موقف نہ لیا کہ انہوں نے سرکاری چھاپہ خانہ سے گزٹ شدہ فرمان حکومت حاصل کرنے کی کوشش کی اور انکار کیا گیا۔اُن کا اصرار کہ وہ مصدقہ نقل صدارتی دفتر سے حاصل کرنا چاہتے تھے،قانوناً اور حقائق کے لحاظ سے لغو اور ناقابل پذیرائی ہے. فریقین نے عدم فراھمی مصدقہ نقول حکم زیر نزاع پر بڑے زوردار دلائل اور قانونی حوالہ جات پیش کیے۔عدالت العالیہ نے بھی اس پہلو کو اہمیت دیتے ہوئےزیر غور لایا۔مطابق نوعیت معاملہ بتقاضائے آزاد جموں و کشمیر عدالت العالیہ قواعد انضابط کار مجریہ 1984ء حکم تقرری مسئولان 7 و 8 کی مصدقہ نقول کی فراھمی لازمی ہے۔ اس حوالہ سے سائلان کی وضاحت غیر معقول اور ناقابل پزیرائی ہے۔ مشمولہ عرضی نقل حکم زیر نزاع کے مندرجات کے مطابق یہ حکم سرکاری چھاپہ خانہ کو اشاعت گزٹ کے لیے ترسیل ہوا۔یہ قانونی تقاضہ بھی ہے اور عام فہم بات بھی۔ سرکاری گزٹ میں شائع شدہ فرمان حکومت کی نقل حاصل کرنے کی نسبت کسی بھی فرد یا سائلان پر نہ کوئی قدغن ہے اور نہ  ہی کوئی دشواری ہے۔ سائلان نے کہیں بھی یہ موقف نہ لیا کہ انہوں نے سرکاری چھاپہ خانہ سے گزٹ شدہ فرمان حکومت حاصل کرنے کی کوشش کی اور انکار کیا گیا۔اُن کا اصرار کہ وہ مصدقہ نقل صدارتی دفتر سے حاصل کرنا چاہتے تھے،قانوناً اور حقائق کے لحاظ سے لغو اور ناقابل پذیرائی ہے۔ احمد نواز تنولی ایڈووکیٹ بنام چیئرمین آزاد جموں و کشمیر کونسل وغیرہ، (الف) 2016 SCR 960
  67.                 —documents annexed with one writ petition were duly attested—in both writ petitions notification dated   12.12.2012, was challenged, therefore, dismissal of one writ petition on the ground of non-filing of the certified copies will bring no fruits when the other writ petition on the same subject was filed while annexing duly certified copies. Messers Friends & others v. Barrister Syed Iftikhar Ali Gillani & others 2017 SCR 534 (D)
error: Content is protected !!