1989 PLP 75 (CLC)
MEHR DIN‑‑Appellant Versus FARZAND ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 75 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑e‑Mahmood and Zia Mahmood Mirza, TJ |
| Parties | MEHR DIN‑‑Appellant Versus FARZAND ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 75 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 75 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑e‑Mahmood and Zia Mahmood Mirza, TJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 75 (CLC) (MEHR DIN‑‑Appellant Versus FARZAND ALI and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Ghaffar Khan and others v. Saghir Ahmed and others P L D 1987 Lah. 358 rel. Ch. Mohammad Rafiq Warriach for Appellant. Maqbool Ilahi Malik for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Precedent‑‑Order of Supreme Court granting leave to appeal, held, would not render judgment under appeal ineffective or bad in law.‑‑[Precedent]. (b) Judgment‑‑ ‑‑‑Judgment of Trial Court not in conformity with judgment of High Court which still held field‑‑Judgment of trial Court set aside and case remanded for disposal in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Precedent‑‑Order of Supreme Court granting leave to appeal, held, would not render judgment under appeal ineffective or bad in law.‑‑[Precedent]. (b) Judgment‑‑ ‑‑‑Judgment of Trial Court not in conformity with judgment of High Court which still held field‑‑Judgment of trial Court set aside and case remanded for disposal in accordance with law. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and others v. Saghir Ahmed and others P L D 1987 Lah. 358 rel. Ch. Mohammad Rafiq Warriach for Appellant. Maqbool Ilahi Malik for Respondents. FAZL‑E‑MEHMOOD, J.‑‑This is a common ground between the parties that the judgment impugned before us is not in conformity with the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Ghaffar Khan and others v. Saghir Ahmed and others (P L D 1987 Lah. 368). In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Maqbool Ilahi Malik, Advocate who has appeared for the respondents in response to a pre‑admission hearing communication does not dispute this proposition to the extent it goes but adds that the matter is now being agitated before the Supreme Court and the judgment is expected any moment.
3. Despite the fact that special leave to appeal had been granted by the Supreme Court against the judgment of Full Bench of this Court, it is settled law that a mere leave granting order does not[ render the judgment under appeal ineffective or bad in law. The facts) of the matter is that the judgment of the learned trial Court is not in conformity with the Full Bench judgment of this Court which is still holding the field. In case the Supreme Court takes a contrary view, it will be open for the respondents to canvass it before the Court below to proceed in accordance with law declared by the Supreme Court.
4. In view of what has been noticed above, the appeal is allowed and the case is sent back to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. Since both the parties have been heard, this will be treated as a notice case. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./M‑463/L Case remanded.