P L D 1964 Supreme Court 194 (PLP)
Miss SURRAYA PARVEEN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Sh. ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1964 Supreme Court 194 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | Miss SURRAYA PARVEEN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Sh. ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 Supreme Court 194 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 Supreme Court 194 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 Supreme Court 194 (PLP) (Miss SURRAYA PARVEEN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Sh. ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Bakhsh Mir Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Naziruddin Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 11th February 1964.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 31st October 1963, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 230 of 1963).
‑Granted to consider whether defect found by High Court in order impugned did or did not affect appellant‑ Constitution of Pakistan, 1962, Art. 58 (3).
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑We grant leave to appeal. It is urged that the flaw found by the Single Judge to vitiate the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is one which does not necessarily affect the direction given in respect of the residential plot in favour of the petitioners. The Letters Patent Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground that the order made by the learned Single Judge, being an order sending the case back to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision, is not a final order. It would appear, however, that it has upset the decision in favour of the petitioners, which is entitled to finality, if their position is indeed not touched by the defect found in the treat ment of the claim of the respondent Sh. Anwar‑ul‑Haq. Leave granted. Security Rs.
500. Possession to remain undisturbed pending disposal of the appeal. K. B. A. Petition accepted.