2008 PLP 824 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAQ and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs OLYMPIA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 824 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAQ and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs OLYMPIA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 824 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 824 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 824 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAQ and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs OLYMPIA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Arshad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No.2122/L of 2002).
- Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No.395-L of 2003).
- Khawaja Ahmed Tariq Raheem, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1 (in both cases).
- Ch. Inayatullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.12 to 14 (in both cases).
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.4 and 5 (in both cases).
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 185(3) & 199
Petitioners in former petition, despite being a potentially affected party, were neither arrayed nor heard by High Court in constitutional petition, out of which impugned orders had emerged
Petitions were converted into appeals with the consent of parties and were allowed
Impugned judgments were set aside and cases were remitted to High Court where constitutional petition would be deemed to be pending for adjudication afresh after hearing all concerned parties. Nemo for other Respondents (in both cases).
Judgment & Decree
FALAK SHER, J.
This order will dispose of Civil Petition No.395-L of 2003 and 2122-L of 2002 having commonality of facts and law, stemming out of the same judgment delivered by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 3rd of May, 2002 granting the captioned Writ petition No.64/R of 1996.
2. Since admittedly the petitioners in the former petition despite being potentially affected party were neither arrayed nor heard by the Lahore High Court in the writ petition referred to (supra) out of which the impugned judgment, dated 3-5-2002 has precipitated, therefore, with the consent of the parties converting the petitions into appeals are allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment both the cases are remitted to the learned High Court where the writ petition mentioned above would be deemed to be pending for adjudication thereof afresh after hearing all the concerned parties. On the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-143/SC Order accordingly.