1991 PLP 366 (SCMR)
ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA KHANAM and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 366 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA KHANAM and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 366 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 366 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 366 (SCMR) (ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA KHANAM and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th August, 1989.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 16-9-1985 of the Lahore High Court in Review Application No. 3-C of 1985 in R.S.A. No. 580 of 1977).
O.XLVII, R.1 & S.114
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Review application against dismissal of Regular Second Appeal as withdrawn, filed by petitioner, was dismissed by High Court with observations that petitioner might seek other remedy available to him under law
Review application having rightly been dismissed, case, held, was not tit for grant of leave to appeal
Petition was dismissed in light of observations of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioner's Review Application against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal as withdrawn was dismissed by the High Court with the observation that he may seek other remedy available to him under the law. He has now sought leave to appeal. According to learned counsel the suit of respondent No.6 for declaration regarding the suit property was dismissed. He failed in appeal before the District Court and then filed a Regular Second Appeal in the High Court. During the pendency of the litigation the petitioner claims to have purchased the property from the plaintiff, who withdrew his appeal before the High Court thereby, as stated by the learned counsel, depriving the petitioner of his remedy. He accordingly argued that the High Court should have restored the R.S.A. and should have allowed the same as that of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek any other remedy if available in accordance with the observations of the High Court. This petition, accordingly, is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑627/S Petition dismissed.