2009 PLP 1331 (YLR)
IFTIKHAR ALI HAIDRI — Appellant Versus NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY through Chairman and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1331 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR ALI HAIDRI — Appellant Versus NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY through Chairman and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1331 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1331 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1331 (YLR) (IFTIKHAR ALI HAIDRI — Appellant Versus NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY through Chairman and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art.199---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Intra court appeal---Single Judge of High Court had found that question about the genuineness of the document, could not be determined in constitutional jurisdiction---Counsel for appellant had not been able to convince the court, if in the facts and circumstances of the case the factual inquiry about the said document was not required in the matter; and that such exercise could be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction---No legal or factual infirmity existed in the order under challenge, same could not be interfered with in Intra court appeal.
- Muhammad Asadullah Siddiqi for Appellant.
Judgment & Decree
The facts of the case are elaborately mentioned in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in Chamber. The Hon'ble Judge categorically has observed:-- "The only question that boils down for determination in this writ petition is that the letter, dated 20-12-2005 annexed with the parawise comments of the respondents said to have been written by the petitioner with his signatures is genuine one or not." The learned Judge thereafter has held that the question about the genuineness of the document cannot be determined in constitutional jurisdiction and in this regard, has relied upon plethora of judgments.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince us, if in the facts and circumstances, the factual inquiry about the said document is not required in the matter and that such exercise should necessarily be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the order under challenge calling for interference in Intra Court Appeal. Dismissed. H.B.T./I-47/L Appeal dismissed.