1985 PLP 151 (SCMR)
A.K. NIAZI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 151 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | A.K. NIAZI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 151 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 151 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 151 (SCMR) (A.K. NIAZI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taufiq A. Quraishi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th November, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the order of this Court, dated 2-4-1979, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.307/79).
O. XXVI--Review by Supreme Court--Review sought on ground that some of reasons given by Court were not correct on point of possession of respondent and finding that petitioner had not raised that point at various stages was, erroneous--Fact that said points did not figure in impugned judgment or in relevant order of Settlement Department conceded by petitioner--Supreme Court dismissed review application observing that neither legally nor factually petitioners had made out any case for review.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The only point argued is that some of the reasons given by this Court in para.8 of its previous judgment dated 2-4-1979 now under review are not correct on the point of the possession of Sh. Muhammad Ismail, respondent, and the finding that the petitioners had not raised that point at various stages was erroneous. However, it was conceded that the aforesaid point did not figure in the impugned judgment of the L.P.A. Bench or in the relevant order of the Settlement Department. In this state of affairs, we refrain from making any further observations and will dismiss this review application by simply observing that neither legally nor factually the petitioners have made out any case for review of the previous order, aforesaid.
2. The review application is accordingly dismissed. M . Z . M . Petition dismissed.