SCMR 1969

1969 PLP (1) (SCMR)

M. A. RAHMAN Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Review Petition No. 43 of 1968, decided on 11th October 1968.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1969 PLP (1) (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties M. A. RAHMAN Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Primary Law Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP (1) (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP (1) (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP (1) (SCMR) (M. A. RAHMAN Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII

Representation

  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 11th October 1968.

Headnotes / Summary

(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 2nd March 1966, in Civil Petition No. 16 of 1966).

r. 1‑Petition barred by time‑Contention that petition was awaiting decision in a similar caseHeld: no ground for condonation of delay. Petitioner in person.

Judgment & Decree

(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 2nd March 1966, in Civil Petition No. 16 of 1966).

r. 1‑Petition barred by time‑Contention that petition was awaiting decision in a similar caseHeld: no ground for condonation of delay. Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 11th October 1968. FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑This petition is barred by 838 days. The only ground urged in the petition for condonation of the delay is that the petitioner wants to take advantage of the decision of this Court in the case of Govt. of West Pakistan v. Karamatul lah Khan (P L D 1968 S C 292). This however, cannot be regarded as good ground for condonation of this inordinate delay. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed as time‑barred. Petition dismissed.