1991 PLP 1862 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1862 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1862 (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 1862 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1862 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukhat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 1990.
- A.R. Shaukhat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 1-6-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.313-R of 1982).
Art. 185(3)
Petitioner was fully aware of proceedings wherein order was passed against him and finding of Court below that petitioner was guilty of laches, was fully justified
Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The writ petition of the petitioner Muhammad Zahoor was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of laches in so far as he did not challenge the impugned order passed by the Settlement Authorities for more than 6 years. Mr. A. R. Shaukat in support of this petition has submitted that the petitioner not being a party to the proceedings in which the impugned order was passed could not be faulted for not challenging it within time, as not being a party to the proceedings he was not aware when it was passed. After having gone through the record before us, with the help of Mr. A. R. Shaukat and Mr. S. M. Masud, learned counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings wherein the impugned order was passed and the finding that he has been guilty of laches is fully justified. Dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1300/S Petition dismissed.