1989SCMR814 (PLP)
NASIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, MANGLA DAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR814 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | NASIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, MANGLA DAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR814 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR814 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR814 (PLP) (NASIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, MANGLA DAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 23-2-87 in I.C.A. 41/85). --Art.185(3)--Bar of jurisdiction--Petitioner's suit for declaration with consequential relief concerning his seniority vis-a-vis others dismissed by Civil Court in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and such finding upheld up to Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir--Petitioner, thereafter, invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of Lahore High Court but remained unsuccessful--High Court's order impugned--Supreme Court having no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal, leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in Person. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal by Nasim Hussain resident of village Dhok Awan, District Jhelum, is barred by thirteen days. The petitioner is not represented by a counsel. He is appearing in person. We, therefore, condoned the delay and called upon him to address us. We have heard him at some length. The main obstacle in his way is the question of jurisdiction. He started with the merits of the case. Those can only be examined provided the Court has the necessary jurisdiction. In the instant case the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub judge, Mirpur. It was in his Court that he filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief concerning his seniority vis‑a‑vis others. The suit was dismissed on 31‑1‑1978. The petitioner remained unsuccessful throughout. He lost his appeal before the District Judge; failed before the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and finally before the Honourable Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. It was thereafter that he invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court but his petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of that Court. Then he tiled appeal. He met the same fate by order dated 23‑2‑1987 which has been impugned in this petition. We have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Therefore, we cannot help the petitioner. This petition, as such, has to be dismissed. Order accordingly. AA./N‑128/S Petition dismissed.