1986 PLP 1477 (CLC)
Before Fazl-i‑Mahmood, J Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1477 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Before Fazl-i‑Mahmood, J Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1477 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1477 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1477 (CLC) (Before Fazl-i‑Mahmood, J Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioners.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah assisted by Ch Abdus Sattar Ali for Respondents Nos.l to 6.
- 2. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate assisted by Ch. Abdus Sattar Ali, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 6 in view of the ad‑interim order passed by this Court on 21‑1‑1986.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah assisted by Ch Abdus Sattar Ali for Respondents Nos.l to
6. I had sent for the record to verify whether the notices issued to the petitioners through registered acknowledgment due envelopes had been received back after service. Record has been produced by official of the notified officer and all the learned counsel appearing in this case have had the advantage of perusing the same. The record reveals that some of the whereas acknowledgment due in respect of the two petitioners had not been received back. The matter may well have been different if only registered cards had been sent because it carried the presumption of being delivered to the addressee. However, in a case where acknowledgment due is there, it is on the receipt of A . D. that the fact will stand proved as regards the service of addressee.
2. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate assisted by Ch. Abdus Sattar Ali, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 6 in view of the ad‑interim order passed by this Court on 21‑1‑1986.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents in order to save public time and to ensure speedy disposal have reached a consensus that the case be sent back to the notified officer for an actual date so that the petitioners can participate in the proceedings and put up any plea of defence they want to offer.
4. In view of the position which has emerged at the hearing today, I by consent treat this writ petition to be a notice case. The fact that there is no proof of service of the petitioners regarding the date of hearing on which ex parte proceedings were taken is sufficient to set B aside the order, dated 5‑12‑1985. The case is sent back to the notified officer for disposal after associating the petitioners with the proceedings. The notified officer shall dispose of the matter, if necessary, by holding day‑to‑day proceedings.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the notified officer on 13‑2‑1986. There is no need of fresh communication being sent to the parties.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. In view of the consent course adopted by the parties, there shall be no order as to costs. H . B . T Order accordingly