1983 PLP 177 (SCMR)
Haji MUHAMMAD SARWAR-Petitioner Versus Mian ASAD HAKIM AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 177 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafi-ur-Rehman and Mian |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD SARWAR-Petitioner Versus Mian ASAD HAKIM AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 177 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 177 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafi-ur-Rehman and Mian.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 177 (SCMR) (Haji MUHAMMAD SARWAR-Petitioner Versus Mian ASAD HAKIM AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim Advocate-on-Record (absent) for petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment and order of this Court in C. P. S. L. A. No. 585/ 1981). -- Art. 188 and Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI-Review-Counsel trying to re-argue points already decided by Court-No justification made out for purpose-Request that "a word of caution be recorded" so as to avoid prejudice to petitioner regarding decision after remand on certain issues in so far as it purports to reduce effect of decision on an issue, held, cannot be granted-Observation however made that petitioner shall not suffer any real prejudice subject to extent decision on particular issue gone against hips together with necessary consequence thereof. Date, of hearing : 20th October, 1982,
Judgment & Decree
‑Learned counsel in support of this petition for review of judgment dated 14‑12‑1982, has tried to re‑argue the points already decided by this Court. No justification, however, has been made for attempted re‑hearing. The request that "a word of caution be recorded," so as to avoid prejudice to the petitioner regarding decision after remand on issues Nos. 5 and 5‑A, in so far as it purports to reduce the effect of decision on issue No. 4, cannot be granted. That being so, it is observed that the petitioner shall not suffer any real prejudice, subject of course to the extent the decision on issue No. 4 has gone against him together with necessary consequence thereof, in the circumstances of the case. With the foregoing this petition is dismissed as without any merit. Petition dismissed.