1976 PLP 357 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN ‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 357 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 357 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 357 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 357 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mohammad Hussain, Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (both absent) for Petitioner.
- Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 30th October 1975.
- The petitioner is not present, although notice has been duly served on his Advocate‑on‑Record.
- Be that as it may, let a fresh notice issue from office to the petitioner and his Advocate‑on‑Record to show cause as to why the leave should not be recalled. The notice will be returnable at Lahore on the 10th of November, 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Suggestion that not only shares quo order but also leave order obtained by practising fraud upon Court‑Notice issued to show cause why leave be not recalled.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑In this petition leave was granted on the 1st October 1973, but earlier on the 11th July 1973, an order was also passed for maintaining the status quo as to possession on the condition that the petitioner will deposit all future rents commencing from the month of July 1973, by the 15th of each successive month with the Rent Controller and will furnish security for the entire amount of arrears to be determined by the Rent Controller within one month of such determination. The applicant now complains that the petitioner has misled this Court by employing the fraudulent device of describing the property in dispute as BVS.7‑
466. The said property has been transferred to the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to that property, but the dispute is with regard to BVS. 7‑
462. The certificate for the deposits which has been obtained, is with regard to BVS. 7‑466, and, therefore, is misleading. The suggestion thus is that not only was the status quo order but also the leave order obtained by practising fraud upon this Court. The petitioner is not present, although notice has been duly served on his Advocate‑on‑Record. Be that as it may, let a fresh notice issue from office to the petitioner and his Advocate‑on‑Record to show cause as to why the leave should not be recalled. The notice will be returnable at Lahore on the 10th of November, 1975. Order accordingly.