1988 PLP 257 (MLD)
MUHAMMADUL HAQ USMANI‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE OF SPECIAL COURT OF SIND (BANKING) and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 257 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Seeduzzaman Siddiqui and Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMADUL HAQ USMANI‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE OF SPECIAL COURT OF SIND (BANKING) and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 257 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 257 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Seeduzzaman Siddiqui and Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 257 (MLD) (MUHAMMADUL HAQ USMANI‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE OF SPECIAL COURT OF SIND (BANKING) and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Aminuzzaman for Petitioner.
- Ainuddin Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 203‑‑Petitioner's application to Special Judge (Banking) for permission to substitute surety furnished in case not disposed of by Special Judge on ground that a stay order had been granted by Supreme Court which was still holding field‑‑Leave granting order of Supreme Court showing that the leave was granted in those matters on account of conflict of opinion on a point of law amongst different High Courts‑‑Grant of stay in case by Supreme Court was no bar to decision of application of petitioner which was pending before Special Judge (Banking)‑‑Direction issued to Special Judge (Banking) to dispose of application of petitioner according to law.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 203‑‑Petitioner's application to Special Judge (Banking) for permission to substitute surety furnished in case not disposed of by Special Judge on ground that a stay order had been granted by Supreme Court which was still holding field‑‑Leave granting order of Supreme Court showing that the leave was granted in those matters on account of conflict of opinion on a point of law amongst different High Courts‑‑Grant of stay in case by Supreme Court was no bar to decision of application of petitioner which was pending before Special Judge (Banking)‑‑Direction issued to Special Judge (Banking) to dispose of application of petitioner according to law. Syed Aminuzzaman for Petitioner. Ainuddin Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th January, 1987. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we admit this petition to regular hearing and it is disposed of as follows:‑‑ The petitioner field an application before the Special Court of Sind (Banking), Karachi, for permission to substitute the surety furnished in case. Notice of this application was issued to respondent for 17‑2‑1987 but it has not been disposed of till today. The petitioner has accordingly sought a direction in this petition against respondent No. 1 for disposal of the above application in accordance with the law. Before admission of this petition we called for the comments of Presiding Officer of the Special Court (Banking), Karachi on the petition. In the comments it is mentioned that the aforesaid application could not be disposed of because of stay order granted by the Supreme Court which is still operating. Leave granting order of Supreme Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 92, 160 A and 356 has been produced before us and we find that the leave was granted in these matters on account of conflict of opinion on a point of law amongst the different High Court. We are accordingly of the view that the grant of stay in the case by the Supreme Court is no bar to the decision of the application of the petitioner which is pending before the Special Court of Sind (Banking) at Karachi. Accordingly we allow this petition and direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the application of petitioner according to law. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.M./M‑50/K