2007 PLP 1187 (YLR)
MUQADDAS SHAH and others — Appellants Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1187 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Bilal Khan and Tariq Shamim, JJ |
| Parties | MUQADDAS SHAH and others — Appellants Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1187 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1187 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Bilal Khan and Tariq Shamim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1187 (YLR) (MUQADDAS SHAH and others — Appellants Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pir Syed Kaleem Khurshid for Appellant.
- Mian M. Rauf Ahmad for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 71 & 73
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3
Appellant had assailed the order passed by High Court whereby this constitutional petition seeking setting aside order passed by Election Tribunal, was dismissed
Order passed by . Election Tribunal was neither contrary to law nor had violated principles of natural Justice
Order passed by Election Tribunal being not without jurisdiction, same could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
In absence of any error of illegality in the order of High Court, same could not be interfered with in intra-Court appeal.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this Intra-Court appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of learned Single Judge dated 9-1-2006 whereby the writ petition of the appellants seeking setting aside of the order dated 13-12-2005 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Election Tribunal, U.C. 14, Ferozewala was dismissed.
2. The petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge while observing as under:-- "The petitioners tried to drag their feet and did not file written statement without any rhyme or reason. No justification has been shown as to why written statement was not filed on several dates of hearing when petition was posted for this very purpose. On two, occasions, last opportunities were given to petitioners for filing of written statement. They did not bother to file written statement. They had not paid even the costs subject to payment of which hearing of petition was postponed on 3-12-2005 to 12-12-2005. The order passed by the Election Tribunal shows that counsel for the parties had appeared before the Tribunal on 13-12-2005 which belies the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they were given the next date of hearing as 14-12-2005 by Reader of the Election Tribunal. In case date was given as 14-12-2005, there was no occasion for counsel for the petitioners to have appeared before the Election Tribunal on 13-12-2005. This is a lame excuse and has been taken only for the sake of argument. Petitioners, by their own conduct, had disentitled them for further hearing in the matter. The order passed by the Election Tribunal is neither contrary to law on the subject nor has violated the principle of natural justice. The substantive and procedural due process has been duly complied with by the Election Tribunal. The order passed by the Election Tribunal is not without jurisdiction and cannot be interfered with in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents Nos.2 and 3 we have found absolutely no error or illegality in the orders of the learned single Judge and would in fact reaffirm the view taken therein. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to satisfy us as to the maintainability of the instant Intra-Court appeal.
4. For what has been discussed above we do not find any reason or justification to interfere in the impugned order. Resultantly, the appeal being without any force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-45/L Appeal dismissed.