1993 PLP 1325 (SCMR)
JANE MARGRETE WILLIAM through General Attorney M. Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID MIAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1325 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Actg. CJ. and Shafiur Rahman, J |
| Parties | JANE MARGRETE WILLIAM through General Attorney M. Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID MIAN‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1325 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1325 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Actg. CJ. and Shafiur Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1325 (SCMR) (JANE MARGRETE WILLIAM through General Attorney M. Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID MIAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Birjess Nagi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1992.
- JANE MARGRETE WILLIAM through General Attorney M. Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate‑‑‑Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23‑8‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.FA. No.2 of 1989). Benami transaction‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Several questions of law had arisen in petition for leave viz. as to what in law, is a Benami transaction; could the transaction in question be termed to be a Benami one; whether a Benami transaction was recognised in Islam; whether the High Court deciding the? appeal could have suo motu granted relief of possession without plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint; such matter would assume importance because the inclusion of the relief of possession would result in raising the jurisdictional value to an amount exceeding Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) and in such case appeal would normally have to be heard by a Bench of two Judges, whereby Single Judge (as in this case) would be unable to grant relief of possession‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted for the questions raised, inter alia, required fuller examination.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, ACTG. CJ.‑‑‑Several questions of law arise in this petition for leave namely, what, in law, is a Benami transaction? Could the instant transaction be termed to be a Benami one? Whether a Benami transaction is recognized in Islam? It also requires to be seen whether the learned Single Judge deciding the appeal could have suo motu granted the relief of possession without the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. This matter assumes importance because the inclusion of the relief of possession would result in raising the jurisdictional value in this matter to, an amount exceeding Rs.2,00,000 and in such a case the appeal would normally have to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the Lahore High Court. Consequently a learned Single Judge would be unable to grant the relief of possession. These questions inter alia require fuller examination. Leave granted. Interim order dated 13‑10‑1992 is confirmed. This appeal shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file further documents, if any, at a very early date. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs.5,
000. A.A./J‑96/S Leave granted.