1989 PLP 442 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MALIK and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 442 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, lJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MALIK and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 442 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 442 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, lJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 442 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MALIK and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Taleb Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh.Shamshud Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988.
- Malik Taleb Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh.Shamshud Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lore, dated 15th September 1982 in Writ Petition No.3720 of 1982).
Arts.199 & 185(3)--Writ jurisdiction--Exercise of--Impugned older not assailed before lower forum--Effect of--Dismissal of writ petition by High Court challenged--Only ground urged being that when first order was set aside by Additional Commissioner and case remanded to Collector, they were not made parties in those proceedings--Record showing that Collector oft re-hearing the matter had made them parties and thereafter even Board of Revenue had examined their case on merits--Petitioners' case before High Court that order was passed by Additional Commissioner behind their back and it was passed of a time-barred appeal, not sustained--Petitioners failed to challenge the order of Additional Commissioner before Board of Revenue and on the contrary they took part in remand proceedings before Collector--No case being made out for interference with impugned order, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against the order of, the Lahore‑High Court, Lahore dated 15th September 1982 whereby writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the Collector confirmed the consolidation scheme in the village. The respondents challenged the scheme in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who remanded the case to the Collector with certain directions. The Collector took up the case again and allotted some Khasr numbers to the respondents whereupon the present petitioners challenged that order in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who after hearing counsel for the parties and having examined the record dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the petitioners filed revision before the Member, Board of Revenue who dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners. The orders of the Revenue authorities were challenged by way of writ petition but that also failed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal. The only ground urged before us by learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the first order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner and case was remanded by him to the Collector they were not made parties in those proceedings. But the record indicates that the Collector on rehearing of the matter made them parties and thereafter even the Board of Revenue had examined the case of the petitioners on merits. However before the High Court the case of the petitioners was that the order was passed by the Additional Commissioner behind their back and it was passed on a time‑barred appeal. The observation of the High Court is that it was open to the petitioners to challenge that order of the Additional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue but they did not do so. On the contrary they took part in the remand proceedings before the Collector. After hearing learned counsel, in our view, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.I. /M‑562/S Petition dismissed.