1989 PLP 1231 (SCMR)
Mst. BALQIS BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus KARIM BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1231 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. BALQIS BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus KARIM BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1231 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1231 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1231 (SCMR) (Mst. BALQIS BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus KARIM BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑O.XII, R.2‑‑Adjournment‑‑Case pertained to 1983 and was taken on turn‑ Counsel for petitioner was absent; Advocate‑on‑Record present who submitted that he informed the counsel that the case was fixed for hearing but in spite of that he had not turned up‑‑No request for adjournment from the counsel was received but the A.O.R. insisted for an adjournment‑‑Supreme Court declined adjournment and proceeded with the case.
- M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑tin‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record, Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. M. Tavyab, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1989.
- GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑This case was taken up on its turn. Counsel for the petitioner was absent; Advocate‑on‑Record present. The latter submitted that he informed the former that the case was fixed for hearing today. In spite of that the counsel has not turned up. We have not received any request for adjournment from the counsel but the Advocate‑on‑Record insisted for an adjournment.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑6‑1983 in L.PA. No.101 of 1968). (a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire property to respondent on the ground that he was a claimant whereas petitioner was a non‑claimant‑‑Matter stood concluded by finding of fact that property being situated in a part of the town which was initially residential, it was meant for residential purposes‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑This case was taken up on its turn. Counsel for the petitioner was absent; Advocate‑on‑Record present. The latter submitted that he informed the former that the case was fixed for hearing today. In spite of that the counsel has not turned up. We have not received any request for adjournment from the counsel but the Advocate‑on‑Record insisted for an adjournment. We are not inclined to do so because the matter pertains to the year 1983. So we examined the record called for by order dated 20‑1‑88; also perused the impugned judgment as well as other relevant orders. Learned judge as well as Letters Patent Bench of the High Court rightly observed regarding the lathes. Even, otherwise, the matter stands concluded by finding of fart ref the Settlement Commissioner that the property in dispute (SW.III‑24‑S‑8, Ramnagar, Lahore) was meant for residential purposes being situated in a part of the town which was initially residential. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner transferred the entire property to respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was a claimant whereas the other side was a non‑claimant. It is not a fit case for grant of leave. Dismissed. M.BA./B‑100/S Petition dismissed.