1987 PLP 210 (CLC)
Mrs. NASEEMA KHATOON and others‑‑Petitioners Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1987 PLP 210 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and |
| Parties | Mrs. NASEEMA KHATOON and others‑‑Petitioners Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1873)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 210 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1873)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 210 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 210 (CLC) (Mrs. NASEEMA KHATOON and others‑‑Petitioners Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.H. Fani for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Conatitutional petition raising questions of facts and law‑‑Proper way to resolve‑‑Where questions raised in petition involved disputed facts as well as legal position, it was in the interest of petitioners themselves to have the whole matter resolved in proper Court‑‑Petitioners in view of such observation of High Court did not press the petition but requested that status quo be maintained by respondents in respect of plots in dispute for a period of two months which was granted by the Court.
Judgment & Decree
KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another‑‑Respondents Constitutional Petition No. D‑870 of 1986, decided on 4th February, 1987. ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Conatitutional petition raising questions of facts and law‑‑Proper way to resolve‑‑Where questions raised in petition involved disputed facts as well as legal position, it was in the interest of petitioners themselves to have the whole matter resolved in proper Court‑‑Petitioners in view of such observation of High Court did not press the petition but requested that status quo be maintained by respondents in respect of plots in dispute for a period of two months which was granted by the Court. S.H. Fani for Petitioners. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑The question raised in this petition involves disputed facts as well as legal position arisen out of the same and therefore it would be in the interests of petitioners themselves to have the whole matter resolved in Civil Court. At this atage Mr. Fani stated that in view of the above observations of Court, he does not press this petition but requests that the status quo be maintained in respect of these plots at least for a period of two months by the respondents. The request appears to be reasonable. Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan and Mr. S.H. Kizilbash for respondents have not objected to the same and therefore we direct that for a period of two months from today status quo will be maintained by the respondents In respect of the plots which were claimed by these 20 petitioners. In case the petitioners are not able to secure any relief from the Civil Judge within the period of two months then the respondents will be free to deal with the plots as they wish. With this stipulation the petition and the CMA is dismissed as withdrawn. H.B.T/N‑37/K Order accordingly.