1987 PLP 1145(2) (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJID and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1145(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C. J. Nasim Hasan Shah, |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1145(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1145(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C. J. Nasim Hasan Shah,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1145(2) (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJID and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Dismissal of petition for non‑prosecution‑‑Counsel for petitioners obtaining repeated adjournments so as to present copy of a plaint was told that no further adjournment would be allowed Having failed to produce said document and contact petitioners during five weeks, counsel requested for further adjournment which was not granted and petition dismissed for non‑prosecution.
- Bashir Zafar, Advocate‑on‑Record and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 29‑1‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 814 of 1979).
Judgment & Decree
Bashir Zafar, Advocate‑on‑Record and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th April, 1987. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the unanimous decision of the three Courts below whereby their alleged preferential right to pre‑emption was negatived. This petition was instituted in March, 1980 and came up for hearing on the 23rd February, 1987. However, at the request of the petitioners' counsel the petition was adjourned to 25‑2‑1987. On the adjourned date of hearing (25‑2‑1987) the petitioners' learned counsel again sought an adjournment on the ground that the copy of the plaint, which he wanted to present before the Court and for which purpose he had earlier sought the adjournment, could not be obtained and he wanted some more time to obtain it. The case was, accordingly, adjourned to 10‑3‑1987 but it was observed in the order passed on that date that no further adjournment would be granted. On 10‑3‑1987 when the case came up for hearing counsel for the petitioners again sought an adjournment on the ground that he was unable to contact the petitioners and was, therefore, not able to get the copy of the plaint. The case was accordingly again adjourned to the second week of April, 1987 but it was clearly stated in the order passed on 10‑3‑1987 that this would be the "last adjournment". Today when the case came up again after nearly 5 weeks the petitioners' counsel again prayed for adjournment saying that he was A still unable to contact the petitioners. It is manifest that in view of the facts stated above no further adjournment can possibly be granted. Dismissed for non‑prosecution. M.I. /A‑38/S Order accordingly.