1991 PLP 1877 (SCMR)
Malik NASIM AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DERA GHAZI KHAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1877 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Malik NASIM AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DERA GHAZI KHAN and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1877 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1877 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1877 (SCMR) (Malik NASIM AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DERA GHAZI KHAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner in both the petitions.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner in both the petitions.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2-4-1988 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.1713 of 1987 and Writ Petition No.106 of 1988).
Art.185(3)
Judgment passed by High Court in exercise of its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction refusing to interfere in the order of trial Court restoring the suit after it was dismissed in default, not suffering from any infirmity either of law or principle
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant in these two petitions; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his writ petitions. The suit of the respondent/plaintiff side was dismissed for default by the trial Court. Their application for restoration, however, was allowed on a finding that the date of dismissal for default was not a "date of hearing". The question of notice was also decided in their favour. Petitioner's challenge, to the trial Court orders, in the revisional jurisdiction of the District Court, failed. Accordingly he filed writ petition in the High Court which having been dismissed he has now sought leave to appeal. In addition to the arguments, raised before the High Court which were properly dealt with and repelled, learned counsel has also contended that there was no justification for setting aside, the dismissal of the suit for default. After hearing the learned counsel on this question of fact as well, we have not been able to find any justification for grant of leave to appeal; as the impugned judgment, in the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court, does not suffer from any infirmity either of law or principle. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. H.B.T./N‑191/S Leave refused.