1991 PLP 364 (SCMR)
AZIZ DIN and another — Petitioners Versus QADIR BAKHSH and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 364 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZ DIN and another — Petitioners Versus QADIR BAKHSH and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 364 (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 364 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 364 (SCMR) (AZIZ DIN and another — Petitioners Versus QADIR BAKHSH and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1989.
- Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 11-11-1986 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 208-D of 1986).
Art.185(3)
Revision filed before High Court was dismissed on ground of laches
Petitioners having failed to explain delay noted by High Court, no justification thus was made out for interference
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMAMD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants' side in a suit for declaration regarding title which also involved the question of paternity of parties; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' civil revision. The respondents' suit having been decreed the petitioners' appeal was dismissed. They filed civil revision which was also dismissed but for non prosecution. Their application for restoration was dismissed. They filed another civil revision which has also been dismissed on the ground of laches. We heard the learned counsel at length and asked him to explain the delay which has been taken note by the High Court in accordance with the principles enunciated by this Court in `Manager, Jammu & Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another' P L D 1975 SC
678. He having failed to satisfy us in this behalf, no justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. H.B.T./A‑662/S Leave refused.