1989 PLP 1120 (SCMR)
Mst. KALSOOM ZOHRA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE UNITED BANK LTD. and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1120 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KALSOOM ZOHRA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE UNITED BANK LTD. and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1120 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1120 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1120 (SCMR) (Mst. KALSOOM ZOHRA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE UNITED BANK LTD. and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Majid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 4th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 23‑1‑1984 in I.C.A. No.64/83). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Interlocutory order‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against such order‑‑Case was ripe for final decision‑‑Supreme Court declined grant of leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal by the defendant in a loan recovery case, is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of her Intra‑Court Appeal which had arisen out of the dismissal of her Writ Petition. The petitioner's application before the learned Banking Court for issuance of notice to the other party that certain documents be produced and statement be recorded, was refused. The petitioner's Writ Petition and I.C.A. having been dismissed, she has now sought leave to appeal. No stay was granted in this case in so far as the proceedings in the original suit are concerned. Learned counsel has informed that the case is ripe for final decision. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal in respect of an interlocutory order. The petition accordingly is dismissed. M.B.A./K‑102/S Leave refused.