1983 PLP 159 (SCMR)
ADMINISTRATOR, THAI DEVELOPMENT-Petitioner Versus MEHBOOB ALI KHAN-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 159 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --3 as amended by Law Reforms (Amendment) Act (VIII of 1972 Inter-Court Appeal-Competency-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court Granted to consider contention that view of High Court as to intra Court appeal being not competent was a misreading, misinterpretation and misconstruction of S. 3-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3). |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ADMINISTRATOR, THAI DEVELOPMENT-Petitioner Versus MEHBOOB ALI KHAN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (c) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 159 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (c) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 159 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --3 as amended by Law Reforms (Amendment) Act (VIII of 1972 Inter-Court Appeal-Competency-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court Granted to consider contention that view of High Court as to intra Court appeal being not competent was a misreading, misinterpretation and misconstruction of S. 3-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3). bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 159 (SCMR) (ADMINISTRATOR, THAI DEVELOPMENT-Petitioner Versus MEHBOOB ALI KHAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qadri, Advocate on Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 22nd June, 1982.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7th July, 1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in I. C. A. No. 277/81). -- Arts. 185 (3) & 199 - Writ jurisdiction - Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Arrears of salary -Declaratory decree for arrears of salary-Whether can be enforced and implemented through agency of writ petition-Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to determine such question-Arrears of salary-Declaratory decree-Specific Relief Act (I of 1887), S.
42. Muhammad Yousaf Khan and others v. Pakistan Railway through Vice Chairman, P. R. and others 1972 S C M R 1 ref.
S. 42-Arrears of salary-Question whether employee entitled to relief regarding payment of arrears of salary even if declaratory decree could have been passed by High Court-Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3). --3 [as amended by Law Reforms (Amendment) Act (VIII of 1972] Inter-Court Appeal-Competency-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court Granted to consider contention that view of High Court as to intra Court appeal being not competent was a misreading, misinterpretation and misconstruction of S. 3-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Judgment & Decree
(a) that declaratory decree cannot be enforced and implemented through the agency of a writ petition Muhammad Yousaf Khan and others v. Pakistan Railway through Vice‑Chairman, P. R. and others (1972 S C M R 1) refers ; (b) that in any case, respondent was not entitled to the relief regarding payment of arrears of salary even if a declaratory decree could have been passed by the High Court, and (c) that the view that the Intra‑Court Appeal was not competent against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was a misread ing, misinterpretation and misconstruction of the provision of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, as amended by the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act 8 of 1972, keeping in view the nature of the proceedings in question. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Caveator, we consider that these points require further examination. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. Leave granted.