1988 PLP 1396 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and another Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1396 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1396 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1396 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1396 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yusuf Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondents ,
- Date of hearing 28th May. 1988
- Yusuf Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 22-4-1986. in W P. No.693 of 1986) . --Arts.199 & 185(3)--Leave to appeal- -Contention that adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner
Supreme Court attended to the question but found that writ petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed--Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J. ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a husband/father in a family matter against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. This case has arisen out of a maintenance order passed in favour of the children of the petitioner His appeal having been dismissed he also failed to convince the High Court in so far as the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is concerned. The point urged by the learned counsel is with regard to the adequate opportunity of hearing. This has duly been attended to. After hearing him we do not find any justification for interference His writ petition having been rightly dismissed in the High Court, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. M.B A./M‑483/S Leave refused.