1983 PLP 1013 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND OTTERS-Petitioners Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1013 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND OTTERS-Petitioners Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1013 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1013 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1013 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND OTTERS-Petitioners Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. R. Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners,
- Date of hearing: 9th February 1983.
- M. R. Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 18-1-1977, in R. S. A. 411/74), --Art. 185 (3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100 and O. XLI, r. 19-Dismissal of second appeal for default--Application for restoration Points urged already raised in High Court and pro perly dealt with in impugned order-High Court found to have rightly held counsel of appellant negligent in appearing before it-Order refusing restoration of appeal upheld. Nemo of Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 185 (3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100 and O. XLI, r. 19‑Dismissal of second appeal for default‑‑Application for restoration Points urged already raised in High Court and pro perly dealt with in impugned order‑High Court found to have rightly held counsel of appellant negligent in appearing before it‑Order refusing restoration of appeal upheld. M. R. Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners, Nemo of Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th February 1983. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from ‑the order dated 18‑1‑1977 of the Lahore High Court, whereby it refused to restore a regular second civil appeal after its dismissal for default. Two points have been urged by the learned counsel. One, that the counsel representing the petitioner in the High Court, not being a member of the High Court Bar Association had no facility regarding the supply of the daily list; and, two, that the said counsel was under an impression that (he, despite the direction to do the needful had not taken steps for impleading legal representatives of a deceased party) the case would not be fixed the same being incomplete. Same points having been raised in the High Court have been properly dealt with, in the impugned order. The learned counsel was held to have been negligent. We do not find any departure from any principle in this behalf. The extraordinary indulgence sought by the' learned counsel was, in the circumstances of the case, rightly refused. This petition has n merit and is accordingly dismissed. S. Q. Leave refused.