1991 PLP 1238 (SCMR)
BEHRAM KHAN — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1238 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art.185(3)---Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution---Appellant's counsel having appeared in response to show-cause notice had prayed for time to contact his clients and to do the needful--Supreme Court declined to grant any further time and dismissed appeal for non-prosecution, observing that if counsel succeeded in seeking instructions from his client he could request for revival of appeal: --Counsel and client. |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry |
| Parties | BEHRAM KHAN — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1238 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1238 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art.185(3)---Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution---Appellant's counsel having appeared in response to show-cause notice had prayed for time to contact his clients and to do the needful--Supreme Court declined to grant any further time and dismissed appeal for non-prosecution, observing that if counsel succeeded in seeking instructions from his client he could request for revival of appeal: --Counsel and client. bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1238 (SCMR) (BEHRAM KHAN — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.185(3)
Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution
Appellant's counsel having appeared in response to show-cause notice had prayed for time to contact his clients and to do the needful--Supreme Court declined to grant any further time and dismissed appeal for non-prosecution, observing that if counsel succeeded in seeking instructions from his client he could request for revival of appeal: --[Counsel and client].
Judgment & Decree
Civil Appeal No.20/Q of 1990, decided on 23rd August, 1990. ‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Appellant's counsel having appeared in response to show‑cause notice had prayed for time to contact his clients and to do the needful‑‑Supreme Court declined to grant any further time and dismissed appeal for non‑prosecution, observing that if counsel succeeded in seeking instructions from his client he could request for revival of appeal: ‑‑[Counsel and client]. M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Learned A.O.R. for the appellant appears in response to the show‑cause notice and prays for two months time to contact his clients and to do the needful. We are not inclined to grant any further time and dismiss the appeal for non‑prosecution. However, if the A.O.R. succeeds in seeking instructions he may request for revival of the appeal. AA./B‑169/S Appeal dismissed.