1997 PLP 610 (SCMR)
Mst. DILBAR HAMID‑‑‑Applicant Versus Dr. GHULAM BHEEK KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 610 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. DILBAR HAMID‑‑‑Applicant Versus Dr. GHULAM BHEEK KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 610 (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 1997 PLP 610 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 610 (SCMR) (Mst. DILBAR HAMID‑‑‑Applicant Versus Dr. GHULAM BHEEK KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th December, 1996.
- Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Applicant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11‑10‑1996 in L.P.A. No.221 of 1971). ‑‑‑‑S.12(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 185(3)‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. after filing review petitions‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside judgment of Supreme Court‑‑‑Prior to filing of such application two review petitions were filed seeking review of judgment in question and in both those petitions petitioner also appeared as one of applicants ‑‑‑Petitioner's contention that she being permanent resident of Canada, did not appoint any counsel to file review petition was not supported by any material on record‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. would not lie after dismissal of review petition by Supreme Court‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed in circumstances. Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11‑10‑1996 in L.P.A. No.221 of 1971). ‑‑‑‑S.12(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 185(3)‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. after filing review petitions‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside judgment of Supreme Court‑‑‑Prior to filing of such application two review petitions were filed seeking review of judgment in question and in both those petitions petitioner also appeared as one of applicants ‑‑‑Petitioner's contention that she being permanent resident of Canada, did not appoint any counsel to file review petition was not supported by any material on record‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. would not lie after dismissal of review petition by Supreme Court‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed in circumstances. Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Applicant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th December, 1996. Petitioner has filed the present Miscellaneous Application under section 12 (2), of C.P.C. seeking setting aside of judgment of this Court dated 11‑8‑1991, It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to filing of application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. two review petitions were filed seeking review of judgment dated 11‑8‑1991 and in both petitions the name of the present petitioner also appears as one of the applicants. The learned counsel, however, contends that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada and she did not appoint any counsel to file the review petitions. Beside the fact that no material is available in support of the contention, the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. simply does not lie after dismissal of the review petition by this Court. This miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. A.A.ID‑127/S Application dismissed,