1986 PLP 471 (SCMR)
SHAH ZAMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 471 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | SHAH ZAMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 471 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 471 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 471 (SCMR) (SHAH ZAMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 15‑1‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Writ Petitions Nos. 49‑R of 1983, 23‑R of 1983, 48‑R of 1983 and 50‑R of 1983).
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 206‑R of 1985, Civil Petition No. 207‑R of 1985, Civil Petition No. 208‑R of 1985 and Civil Petition No. 209‑R of 1985, as the question raised in all these petitions is the same. The High Court allowed withdrawal of the writ petitions with right to file civil suits to each of the contesting respondents to vindicate their civil rights in the property. While allowing them to do so it observed that the civil suit when filed will be decided on its "own merits". It is urged that as the petitioners were given permanent, entitlement of the land, the civil Courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the observation made by the High Court that the civil suit should be decided on "merits" would prevent it from,,% holding that it has no jurisdiction in the matter and it is bound to decide the case on merits. The submission has some force. Leave to appeal is allowed in all the abovementioned four petitions. Security in the sum of Rs.500 in each case. In the meanwhile, the suits filed by the respondents may proceed but it will be open to the petitioners to raise all the legal pleas open to them in their defence including the plea that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, no final decision will be taken by the civil Court during the pendency of the appeals in this Court. The above appeals shall be posted for hearing on a very early date, on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any. M. I. Leave granted.