1990 PLP 680 (SCMR)
MAHMOOD and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD YAR and 5 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 680 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MAHMOOD and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD YAR and 5 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 680 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 680 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 680 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD YAR and 5 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Awan M. Hanif Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12‑11‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No.4077 of 1985). ‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑‑Respondents' writ petition was still pending in High Court while petitioners' writ petition had been dismissed‑‑‑Both the counsel agreed that subject‑matter of dispute in both the petitions was such that their joint disposal would have met the ends of justice‑‑‑Petition was converted into appeal and accepted‑‑‑Case remanded to High Court for disposing of both the writ petitions together. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Awan M. Hanif Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Writ Petition. It had arisen out of the allotment of State land. We have heard the learned counsel for both the contesting parties. They felt aggrieved by the orders of the Board of Revenue. The respondents' Writ Petition is still pending in the High Court while the petitioners' writ petition having been dismissed they have sought leave to appeal. Although it is not possible to hold that keeping in view the chronological order in which various orders in this matter were passed. it would not be correct to say that the two Writ Petitions in the High Court were to he treated as counter Writ Petitions to each other; yet, both the learned counsel have agreed that the subject‑matter of dispute in both of them was such that their joint disposal would have met the ends of justice. We agree with this approach to the dispute involved in this case and convert this petition into appeal and allow the same with the order of remand. This case shall be heard, afresh with Writ Petition No.3527 of 1985 filed from the respondents' side and both shall be disposed of together. There shall he no order as to costs. M.A.K./M‑1056/S Petition accepted.