1994 PLP 2027 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2027 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2027 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2027 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2027 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muzamal Khan, Advocate (absent) instructed by Syed Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.7‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Adjournment was sought on the ground that counsel of the petitioner being not well could not travel from Lahore to Islamabad‑‑‑Supreme Court, however, in the absence of counsel, having found that no proper ground having been made out, dismissed review petition. Ch. Muzamal Khan, Advocate (absent) instructed by Syed Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Respondents in person (absent). Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993. NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.‑‑‑This is a petition seeking review of the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1657 of 1990 on 30‑1‑1993.
2. A request has been received for, adjournment of the case on the ground that on account of counsel's backache he cannot undertake the air- journey from Lahore to Islamabad.
3. We, however, have carefully gone through his grounds of review and also perused the judgment of this Court sought to be reviewed. We find that no proper ground has been made out for reviewing the well‑considered judgment of the Court, disposing of Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 1990 by its order dated 30‑1‑1993.
4. Dismissed. A.A./N‑370/S Review dismissed.