1990 PLP 470 (SCMR)
HABIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus NAFEES AHMAD and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 470 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | HABIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus NAFEES AHMAD and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 470 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 470 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 470 (SCMR) (HABIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus NAFEES AHMAD and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (absent).
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑2‑1989 of the Lahore High Court in First Appeal from Order No. 177 of 1988). ‑‑O. XLI, R.17‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) ‑‑‑ Dismissal of defendant's appeal for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Restoration of appeal refused by Appellate Court‑‑‑High Court, in appeal against order, restored defendant's appeal‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑High Court, while deciding appeal against plaintiff, on merits was not only within its jurisdiction to do so but had also committed no error of law or principle‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (absent). Date of hearing: 1st July, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff side in a suit for declaration; against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents/`defendants' appeal after refusal by the Ist Appeal Court to set aside the order of dismissal of their appeal for non‑prosecution. The suit was decreed by the trial Court in petitioner's favour Respondents' appeal was dismissed by the District Court for non‑prosecution. It was not restored by that Court. The High Court, however, accepted the respondents' First Appeal against order (refusing to restore). Therefore, this plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length. He has also taken us through the relevant record. After carefully examining all the points we are satisfied that while deciding First appeal, on merits, against the petitioner, the High Court was not only within its jurisdiction to do so but has also committed no error of law or principle. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. A.A./H‑72/S Leave refused.