1989 PLP 3653 (MLD)
NASEEM ZAFAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3653 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | NASEEM ZAFAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3653 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3653 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3653 (MLD) (NASEEM ZAFAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Samiullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑O.XLVII, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Review of judgment‑ Applicant who was not party to Constitutional petition filed review application for modification of status quo order relying on judgment of High Court in which it was held that a person not party to proceedings, if affected by an order can file review application as the word "any person" figuring in OXLVII, R.1(1), C.P.C. was not relatable to party to suit or proceeding, but refers to person not impleaded as a party thereto‑‑Contention was repelled as right of appeal and review were not analogous as an appeal was, but review was not the continuation of same proceedings‑‑Review application being not competent was dismissed in circumstances. Mst. Fahmeeda Khatoon v. Addl. Deputy Commissioner P L D 1972 Lah.492; Mst. Thamasa Tharaganar v. Muhammad Haji Ganni A I R 1934 Rang. 364; Ding Takkis Ltd.'s case 1970 D L C 14; Qaim Hussain and others v. Anjuman Islamra Gujranwala P L D 1974 Lah. 346 and Asghari Begum v. Muhammad Yusuf 1961 Ind. Cas. 534 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Fahmeeda Khatoon v. Addl. Deputy Commissioner P L D 1972 Lah.492; Mst. Thamasa Tharaganar v. Muhammad Haji Ganni A I R 1934 Rang. 364; Ding Takkis Ltd.'s case 1970 D L C 14; Qaim Hussain and others v. Anjuman Islamra Gujranwala P L D 1974 Lah. 346 and Asghari Begum v. Muhammad Yusuf 1961 Ind. Cas. 534 ref. Samiullah Khan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 27th February, 1988. The applicant is admittedly not a party to the instant writ petition, but has moved this review application for modification of the status quo order dated 11‑11‑1985. The learned counsel has been asked, as to how a 3rd party can seek a review but he relies on Mst. Fahmeeda Khatoon v‑Addl. Deputy Commissioner (PLD 1972 Lah.492). In that case, a learned Single Judge while holding that a person not party to the proceedings, if affected by an order, can file review application, relied upon decisions in which it has been laid down that a person not party to the suit, can file an appeal with the leave of the Court, if he succeeds in showing that his interest in the property has been adversely affected. The learned single Judge was also of the view that the word "any person" figuring in sub rule (1.) of Order 47, is not relateable to the party to the suit or proceedings but refers to the person not impleaded as a party thereto.
2. The right of appeal and review are not analogous. An appeal is but review is not the continuation of the same proceedings. This factor does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. Further' the case law on the subject in which a view contrary to the one taken by the learned single Judge has firmly been laid down, was not placed before him. Reference in this connection may be made to Mst. Thamasa Tharaganar v.Mohammad Haji Ganni (A I R 1934 Rangoon 364), In re: Ding Takkis Ltd. (1970 DLC.14), Qaim Hussain and others v.Anjuman Islamia Gujranwala (P L D 1974 Lah.346) and Asghari Begum v. Muhammad Yusuf (l96l Ind. Cases 534)
3. With respect I am unable to agree with the authority cited by the learned counsel and relying upon the precedents aforesaid in which a contrary view has been taken, I hold that instant review application is not competent. Dismissed in limine. H.B.T./N‑259/L Revision application dismissed.