1986 PLP 278 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 278 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J. Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 278 (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 278 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J. Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 278 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Munir Hussain Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 1‑10‑1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 132 of 1984). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, r.17‑Amendment of pleadings‑‑Petitioner having given consent for seeking amendment in pleadings, writ petition disposed of‑‑Words "after allowing the landlord to amend his pleadings" employed by High Court in operative part of consent order disposing of writ petition, impugned on ground that it left no discretion with trial Court to examine question of amendment on merits‑‑Words "after allowing the landlord to amend his pleadings did not have effect of a fait accompli but are subject to terms of consent recorded earlier in order‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑ In this petition, the petitioner assails the operative part of the order, dated 1‑10‑1984 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 132 of 1984, whereby while doing so the words "after allowing the landlord to amend his pleadings" were used, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, left no discretion with the trial Court to examine the question of amendment on merits although the consent was only given for seeking amendment in the pleadings. These words, in our view, do not have the effect of a fat accompli but are subject to the terms of the consent recorded earlier in the order. This will suffice to dispose of this petition, which is dismissed. M. I. Leave refused.