1985 PLP 142 (SCMR)
AZIZ AHMAD RATHORE — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 142 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZ AHMAD RATHORE — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 142 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 142 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 142 (SCMR) (AZIZ AHMAD RATHORE — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1981.
- M. Ahmad Hasan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for 'Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 31-7-79 in Intra-Court Appeal No.237 of 1979).
Art.185 (3)--Leave to appeal--When leave to appeal is refused, order appealed against is kept intact--All observations made by Court are to be read and understood consistently with intactness of that order. M. Ahmad Hasan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for 'Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks review of order dated 3-11-79 and his petition is barred by 308 days for which he has an explanation that the order was passed in his absence.
2. His grievance is confined to the concluding para of the order passed while refusing leave to appeal to the opposite party.
3. The grievance is misconceived for when leave to appeal is refused, the order appealed against is kept intact, and all observations made are to be read and understood consistently with the intactness of that order. Given that background the observations, without being mad the sole basis of that decision, would mean that the grievance of the petitioner then seeking leave would arise not on the giving of the direction but when Government takes steps which adversely affect his terms and conditions and are not permissible under the law. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed also as time-barred. M-. Z . M . Petition dismissed.