1994 PLP 1630 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government & Rural Development Department and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus TALIB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1630 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government & Rural Development Department and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus TALIB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contract Act (IX of 1872)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1630 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contract Act (IX of 1872)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1630 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1630 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Local Government & Rural Development Department and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus TALIB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Irfan Qadir, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners (in C.P.LA. No. 853‑L of 1992).
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P.LA. No. 853‑L of 1992).
- Syed Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Irfan Qadir, Additional Advocate -General, Punjab with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P.LA. No. 856‑L of 1992).
- MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P.LA. No.856‑L of 1992).
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 62‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXIII, R.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑‑‑Question for consideration in petition for leave to appeal was, whether High Court after disposal of the main Constitutional petition, could record a compromise between the parties on a mere miscellaneous application and thus extend the period of contract between the parties‑‑‑Leave having already been granted to consider the same question in another case, leave to appeal was also granted in the present case.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑The question for consideration in these petitions is if after the disposal of the main Constitution petition it was open to the High Court to record a compromise between the parties on a mere miscellaneous application and thus extend the period of contract between the parties. It is stated that leave has already been granted to consider this question in Civil Petition No. 297 of 1992 (now Civil Appeal No. 712 of 1992) Government of the Punjab v. Muhammad Sher Bahadur. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is also granted in these two petitions. These should be heard together with Civil Appeal No. 712 of 1992. AA./G‑436/S Leave granted.