1986 PLP 215 (SCMR)
NAWAZISH ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 215 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | NAWAZISH ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 215 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 215 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 215 (SCMR) (NAWAZISH ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 25‑6‑1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 54 of 1983 of Bahawalpur). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional judgments of High Court‑‑High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction refusing to interfere with order of District Judge whereby request of respondent to file a fresh written statement was granted by him‑‑Order passed by High Court, held, unexceptionable‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dismissing a Constitutional petition filed by petitioners. By that petition, petitioners sought to challenge the order of the District Judge, Bahawalpur dated 8‑2‑1983 allowing revision application filed by respondent No.1 herein and in result granted his request for filing a fresh written statement. The learned Judge in the High Court refused to exercise constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that on the facts disclosed learned District Judge had ample jurisdiction to permit the submission of fresh written statement. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the record before us. We find that the learned Judge in the High Court has very rightly refused to exercise the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the facts of the case. There is therefore no merit in this petition and it is dismissed. M . Y. H. Petition dismissed.