2006 PLP 647 (SCMR)
NELSON PAUL alias SALIM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ASMAT PARVEEN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 647 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | NELSON PAUL alias SALIM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ASMAT PARVEEN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 647 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 647 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 647 (SCMR) (NELSON PAUL alias SALIM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ASMAT PARVEEN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th December, 2004.
- 2. When we inquired from the learned counsel that as to why the commitment made by him before the High Court to hand over vacant possession till 12th August, 2004 has not been honoured and for which he has offered lame excuses. Simultaneously another round of litigation A has been started by him. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is causing harassment for respondent by indulging into frivolous litigation and due to his this attitude we wanted to impose heavy cost upon him so he may avoid such litigation in future.
- 3. On this learned counsel submitted that petitioner will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 3rd January, 2005 and will not press this petition. Reluctantly we accede to his request. However, petitioner who is present in person is directed in clear terms to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent without fail on or. before 3rd January, 2005 and submit report to the Assistant Registrar of this Court through his Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record,' who shall place it before us in Chambers for passing appropriate orders if need be.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment dated 12-8-2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No.3102 of 2004).
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Commitment made by petitioner before High Court to hand over possession of premises to respondent by specified date
Filing of second Constitutional petition instead of honouring such commitment-Dismissal of second Constitutional petition being not maintainable
Petitioner was causing harassment to respondent by indulging him in frivolous litigation
Supreme Court, due to such attitude of petitioner, expressed its intention, to impose heavy cost upon him, so that he might avoid such litigation in future
Supreme Court, however, accepted request of petitioner's counsel to hand over possession of premises to respondent by specified date. Maqbool Elahi's case 1988 SCMR 1247 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 12-8-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore. Concluding para. therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "(4) The case was fixed on 10-8-2004. Office was directed to send notice to respondent No.1 at the expense of the petitioner for today. Respondent No.1 failed to enter appearance. The earlier writ petition was disposed of and granted time to the petitioner on his request till 12-8-2004, therefore, this Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Maqbool Elahi's case 1988 SCMR 1247."
2. When we inquired from the learned counsel that as to why the commitment made by him before the High Court to hand over vacant possession till 12th August, 2004 has not been honoured and for which he has offered lame excuses. Simultaneously another round of litigation A has been started by him. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is causing harassment for respondent by indulging into frivolous litigation and due to his this attitude we wanted to impose heavy cost upon him so he may avoid such litigation in future.
3. On this learned counsel submitted that petitioner will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 3rd January, 2005 and will not press this petition. Reluctantly we accede to his request. However, petitioner who is present in person is directed in clear terms to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent without fail on or. before 3rd January, 2005 and submit report to the Assistant Registrar of this Court through his Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record,' who shall place it before us in Chambers for passing appropriate orders if need be. S.A.K./N-46/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.