2006 PLP 3128(1) (YLR)
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Versus JHANG TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3128(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sair Ali and Sheikh Azmat Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Versus JHANG TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3128(1) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3128(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali and Sheikh Azmat Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3128(1) (YLR) (PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Versus JHANG TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 96 & O.XXIII, R.1(1)---Withdrawal of appeal---Appellant had sought to unconditionally withdraw appeal---Plea of counsel for respondents was that since full arguments extending over two hearings had been made by both sides, withdrawal should be disallowed---In view of the fact that respondent had failed to file appeal against decree, it was appropriate to permit unconditional withdrawal of appeal---Appeal was dismissed as unconditionally withdrawn.
- Nadeem Ahmad Sheikh for Appellant.
- Amer Zahoor Chohan and Abdul Raheem Tariq Alvi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
After fully arguing the case, the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. PICIC, on instructions from the representative of PICIC (present in Court) seeks to unconditionally withdraw this appeal.
2. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the respondents protests that full arguments extending over two hearings have been made by both the sides, therefore, withdrawal should be disallowed.
3. Considering the fact that the respondents failed to file an appeal against the decree, we deem it appropriate to permit unconditional withdrawal bf the appeal under rule 1(1) of Order XXIII, C.P.C. As such, the appeal is dismissed as unconditionally withdrawn with no order as to the costs. H.B.T./P-18/L Order accordingly.