Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: PLJ 2002 SC (AJK) 119 [Appellate Jurisdiction] CA No. 62 of 2001, decided on 31-10-2001 (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 7-6-2001 in Civil Misc No. 126/99) ----Jurisdiction Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 (VIII of 1974), Section 42: The objection to the lack of jurisdiction of the High Court was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court during arguments. ----Waiver of Objection: The appellants never raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction before the High Court and instead submitted themselves to its jurisdiction. They did not raise the objection even as a ground of appeal before the Supreme Court. ----Estoppel: The appellants could not change their position after the judgment was passed against them by asserting that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Limitation on Inherent Powers: Where a remedy by way of appeal or revision is available, inherent powers in extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favor of that party. The conduct of the appellants throughout the proceedings was negligent and indolent, and thus they did not deserve that inherent powers be exercised in their favor. No interference with the impugned judgment was warranted. [P. 124] A, B ----References: PLD 1984 SC (AJK) 47 -----Background: This case involves a dispute over the allotment of plots in Mirpur, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). The appellants had been allotted Plots Nos. 48-A and 48-B, which were later cancelled through a writ petition. Despite receiving alternate plots, they sought re-allotment of the original plots, leading to multiple rounds of litigation. The appellants raised a new objection before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s jurisdiction was improperly constituted. This objection was raised after the judgment went against them, and the appellants sought to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellants could challenge the High Court’s jurisdiction after having submitted to it throughout the proceedings. -----2- Whether the High Court had the power to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC after the case had been decided by the Supreme Court. -----3- Whether the appellants’ delay in filing the application under Section 151 CPC and their conduct throughout the proceedings warranted the exercise of inherent powers by the courts. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling: --Jurisdiction Objection: The appellants had submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the High Court and did not raise any objections during the proceedings or on appeal. Having accepted the court’s jurisdiction and only challenging it after an adverse judgment, they could not raise this objection at such a late stage. --Inherent Powers: The court held that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised when a party has the remedy of appeal or revision available. Since the appellants had already availed the remedy of appeal, their application for the exercise of inherent powers was not justified. --Conduct of Appellants: The appellants' conduct throughout the litigation, including their failure to timely raise the jurisdiction issue and their indolence in pursuing their rights, did not warrant the exercise of inherent powers. Furthermore, the matter had already been decided by the Supreme Court, and the appellants could not seek to reopen it. --Finality of Supreme Court Judgment: The court emphasized that the matter had been finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revisit it. Additionally, the appellants had already received alternate plots, and re-allotment of the original plots was not justified. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1984 SC (AJK) 47

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.