1989 PLP 1117 (SCMR)
AMJAD H.MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM‑‑Respondent ;
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1117 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jail, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD H.MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM‑‑Respondent ; |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1117 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1117 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jail, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1117 (SCMR) (AMJAD H.MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM‑‑Respondent ;). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M.Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 12th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑5‑1984 in W.P. No.601 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.l85(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Compromise entered upon between the parties in High Court during proceedings in Constitutional petition‑ Grievance of petitioner before Supreme Court being that he would face certain technical difficulties with regard to the production of the entire record from the Bank as instructed by the High Court in view of the compromise‑‑Apprehension of petitioner was not substantiated for High Court had already directed for the production of the "relevant record"‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against an order passed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction whereby the petitioner's Constitutional petition was disposed of in the light of the relief sought by the petitioner and the consent given from the respondent's side. The,_rrelevant_ part of the order reads as follows:- "In view of the above, I direct that the trial Court shall ask the concerned LJIW;I; officers of the two banks to produce the relevant record with sources, if ,;rx,‑ any, of remittances on such a date/dates so that this case is decided '‑before the end of October, 1984. The parties shall appear before the Court on 8th July, 1984. The Court shall also allow the parties to produce any evidence in rebuttal. This petition with the above direction shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs. When questioned as to what is the grievance left with regard direction sought from and issued by the High Court as contained in the above re produced part of the order, the petitioner stated that he would face certain technical difficulties with regard to the production of the entire record. The apprehension is unsubstantiated as the High Court's directions relate to the production of the "relevant record". That being so, no case has been made out for leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. M.BA./A‑486/S Leave refused.