1989 PLP 1726 (SCMR)
Kh. HAMID HASSAN‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ RASHID and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1726 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Kh. HAMID HASSAN‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ RASHID and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1726 (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 1726 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1726 (SCMR) (Kh. HAMID HASSAN‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ RASHID and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29th September, 1984 in R.S.A. No. 169 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question, whether the petitioner had been rightly non‑suited on the ground of his failure to pay proper j, court‑fee at the proper stage and whether in the first round of litigation his appeal was properly filed by duly constituted attorney and other related V‑questions.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J‑‑The petitioner, a plaintiff, in a suit for possession of suit property, has‑ challenged the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court.
2. The questions; whether the petitioner has been rightly non‑suited on the ground of his failure to pay proper court‑fee at the proper stage; and whether, in the 1st round of litigation his appeal was properly filed by duly constituted attorney and other related questions, inter alia, require examination.
2. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,000.
3. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record with direction to the parties to file all additional necessary documents. M.A.K./H‑69/S Leave granted.