1983 PLP 1269(1) (SCMR)
Sardar SAKHAWAT-UD-DIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners. Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1269(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sardar SAKHAWAT-UD-DIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners. Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1269(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1269(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: 1983 PLP 1269(1) (SCMR) (Sardar SAKHAWAT-UD-DIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners. Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Mahmud Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 24th April, 1983.
- Muhammad Mahmud Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6th March, 1983 of the Lahore High Court in F. A. O./R. F. A. 36 of 1962). --Art. 185(3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). O. VII , r. 10_ Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether decree could nave been passed under O. VIII, r. 10, C. P. C. despite absence of any evidence in support 9f plaintiff's case on failure of petitioners., (in Supreme Court) who were defendants in suit proceedings to file additional written statement-Parties given liberty to add further documents, if any, before hearing of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). O. VII , r. 10_ Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether decree could nave been passed under O. VIII, r. 10, C. P. C. despite absence of any evidence in support 9f plaintiff's case on failure of petitioners., (in Supreme Court) who were defendants in suit proceedings to file additional written statement‑Parties given liberty to add further documents, if any, before hearing of appeal. Muhammad Mahmud Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 24th April, 1983. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑: he question, whether a decree could have been passed under the provisions of Order VIII, rule 10, C. P. C. despite the absence of any evidence .in support of the plaintiff's case on the failure of the petitioners herein, who were defendants in the suit proceed ings, to file additional written statements, requires further consideration. Leave is, accordingly, granted. Security Rs. 2,
500. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record, with liberty t the parties to add further documents, if any and fixed for hearing at very early date. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.