1986 PLP 336 (SCMR)
SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAID and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 336 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAID and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 336 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 336 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 336 (SCMR) (SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SAID and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing 30th April. 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Application for review of the judgment of this Court in C.P.No. 962 of 1976). ‑‑‑O. XXVI, r. 1‑‑Application for review of order of Supreme Court dismissing petition for leave to appeal‑‑Contention that petition was accepted and leave was granted but due to some mistake this order was probably recorded in some other case‑‑Contention considered and found to have force‑‑Review petition allowed and office directed to trace earlier order granting leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioners seek review of the order of this Court, dated 24‑3‑1981, dismissing their Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 962 of 1976.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that when the aforementioned petition was heard on 24‑3‑1981. it was, in fact accepted and leave was granted. He pointed out from the notes recorded on the cover of the brief that he had even deposited the security. He also pointed out that the facts mentioned in the impugned order had no relevance to the facts of the case in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 962 of 1976. He urged that ‑due to some mistake this order, which was probably recorded in some other case, was attached with the file of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 962 of 1976.
3. We have carefully considered the matter and feel that there is force in the aforementioned submissions. We, therefore, allow the review and direct that the main petition (Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 962 of 1976) be fixed for hearing on a date to be fixed by the office. Office is directed to trace the earlier order granting leave in this case. M . Y . H . Review petition allowed.