1989 PLP 1276 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Petitioner Versus Messrs Syed SHAFIQUE AHMAD Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1276 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jail, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Petitioner Versus Messrs Syed SHAFIQUE AHMAD Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1276 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1276 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jail, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1276 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Petitioner Versus Messrs Syed SHAFIQUE AHMAD Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Shamim Abbas Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th March. 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 22nd September, 1985 of the Lahore High Court in F.A.O. No.300 of 1980). ‑‑‑O.XLIII, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions relating to dismissal of petitioner's F.A.O. by the High Court for non‑appearance of his counsel, on time as earlier fixed; the refusal by the High Court to restore the appeal on the ground that despite counsel's statement/explanation not having been found false, there was no sufficient cause in that behalf and whether the mistake in estimate of timing by the counsel when appearing in the same Court (other Bench) was a good cause or not.
Judgment & Decree
MIJ14AMNIAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The main questions involved in this case relate to: (i) the dismissal of petitioner's F.A.O. by the High Court v for non appearance of the learned counsel, for the petitioner, on time as earlier fixed. (ii) the refusal by the High Court to restore the appeal on the ground that despite counsel's statement/explanation not having been found false, there was no sufficient cause m that behalf; and (iii) whether the mistake in estimate of timings by the counsel when appearing in the same Court (other Bench) was a good cause or not. C.P. 520/84 (decided on 22‑2‑1989), C.P. 892/84 (decided on 18‑3‑1989); and C.P. 675/85 (decided on 27‑3‑1989); as also, Babu Jan Muhammad and others v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others P L D 1966 S C 461 and Salamat Bibi and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan P L D 1966 S C 467 have decided similar points. They, prima facie, support the petitioner's case. We consider it just and proper to grant leave to appeal. Order accordingly. M.B.A./P‑94/S Leave granted.