1991 SC M R 1360 (PLP)
Mst. ZENAB BIBI and 4 others — Petitioners Versus NISAR AHMAD and 37 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 SC M R 1360 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and |
| Parties | Mst. ZENAB BIBI and 4 others — Petitioners Versus NISAR AHMAD and 37 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 SC M R 1360 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 SC M R 1360 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 SC M R 1360 (PLP) (Mst. ZENAB BIBI and 4 others — Petitioners Versus NISAR AHMAD and 37 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abu-ul-Asim Jafri Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th August, 1989.
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abu‑ul‑Asim Jafri Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 13-4-1988 in Civil Miscellaneous No.44/C-88 in Regular Second Appeal No.30 of 1985).
Art.185(3)
Pro forma defendant having died, his daughter was impleaded, but when she also passed away High Court in pending second appeal passed interim order to the effect that her legal representatives be brought on record subject to objection
Order of High Court was challenged by petitioners
Order of High Court being subject to objection and further if ultimately second appeal was decided against petitioners, they could assail the impugned interim order also if they would choose to seek remedy before Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Pro forma defendant having died, his daughter was impleaded, but when she also passed away High Court in pending second appeal passed interim order to the effect that her legal representatives be brought on record subject to objection‑‑‑Order of High Court was challenged by petitioners‑‑‑Order of High Court being subject to objection and further if ultimately second appeal was decided against petitioners, they could assail the impugned interim order also if they would choose to seek remedy before Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abu‑ul‑Asim Jafri Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for respondents. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑The legal heirs of a deceased party having been impleaded by the High Court in a pending second appeal, the petitioners have challenged the interim order passed by that Court in this behalf. The approach of the High Court was that the concerned party was one of the pro forma defendants. On. his "demise his daughter Aisha was impleaded and now she herself has passed away. Her legal representatives be brought on the record but it shall be subject to the objection .............................................................. ...........................................With this reservation, the C.M. is allowed." Obviously the order was subject to objection and further if ultimately the Regular Second Appeal is decided against the petitioners they would be able to assail the said interim order if they choose to seek remedy before the Supreme Court. With this observation we find no justification for grant of leave to appeal which is accordingly refused. H.B.T./Z‑76/S Leave refused.