1983 PLP 533 (SCMR)
GHULAM QADIR-Appellant Versus J.AHANGIR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 533 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR-Appellant Versus J.AHANGIR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 533 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 533 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 533 (SCMR) (GHULAM QADIR-Appellant Versus J.AHANGIR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Almas Haider Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th -April, 1983.
- ‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Criminal petition for leave to appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution‑Ground pleaded by Advocate‑on- Record in application for restoration of petition that while coming to court he got detained at railway crossing with result that he could not reach Court in time‑He/d, cause shown was not sufficient -Application for restoration dismissed.
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑This is an application seeking restoration of the petitioner's Criminal Petition No. 172‑R of 1982 which had been dismissed on 27‑3‑1983 for non‑prosecution as neither the petitioner nor his counsel had appeared until 1‑15 p.m. that day. Even the Advocate‑on‑Record of the petitioner was not present when the case had been called. In this application made by the learned Advocate‑on‑Record, the ground taken is that he had gone to Islamabad with a view to‑ return in time before the case was called at 1‑00 p.m. but that he got detained at a railway crossing with the result that when he reached the court, the case had already been dismissed. The learned Advocate‑on‑Record admits that be was not prepared to argue the case himself on 27‑3‑1983 nor is he ready to do so even today. That being so, his appearance, even if made on that date, would not have made any difference. Even otherwise, the cause shown is not sufficient. The application is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Criminal petition for leave to appeal dismissed for non-prosecution-Ground pleaded by Advocate-on- Record in application for restoration of petition that while coming to court he got detained at railway crossing with result that he could not reach Court in time-He/d, cause shown was not sufficient -Application for restoration dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑This is an application seeking restoration of the petitioner's Criminal Petition No. 172‑R of 1982 which had been dismissed on 27‑3‑1983 for non‑prosecution as neither the petitioner nor his counsel had appeared until 1‑15 p.m. that day. Even the Advocate‑on‑Record of the petitioner was not present when the case had been called. In this application made by the learned Advocate‑on‑Record, the ground taken is that he had gone to Islamabad with a view to‑ return in time before the case was called at 1‑00 p.m. but that he got detained at a railway crossing with the result that when he reached the court, the case had already been dismissed. The learned Advocate‑on‑Record admits that be was not prepared to argue the case himself on 27‑3‑1983 nor is he ready to do so even today. That being so, his appearance, even if made on that date, would not have made any difference. Even otherwise, the cause shown is not sufficient. The application is dismissed. Application dismissed.