1998 PLP 2189 (SCMR)
Ch. UMAR HAYAT GONDAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID MANZOOR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2189 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. UMAR HAYAT GONDAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID MANZOOR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2189 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2189 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2189 (SCMR) (Ch. UMAR HAYAT GONDAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID MANZOOR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 .
- Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1998.
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1 .
- SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---This petition is directed against the ad interim order of Lahore High Court, dated 10-6-1998. The main petition is still pending in the High Court and we are told by Mr. M. Bilal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, that the petition is fixed for hearing on 25th of this month. Since the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the p petition is involved, the petitioner is at liberty to raise this question before the High Court at the time of hearing of the petition and if it is so raised, the Court will address the question on maintainability before taking the case on merits. The learned counsel states that his client has not been impleaded as a party. Mr. Bilal states that he has no objection if he is allowed to address the Court as a respondent in that petition. The petitioner is, accordingly, allowed to appear before the High Court and make submission in this regard and he will be deemed to have been impleaded as respondent in the case. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 10‑6‑1998 passed in W. P. 11199 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against an ad interim order of High Court while the main petition was still pending in the High Court‑‑‑Main petition was fixed for hearing after two days of the hearing of the present petition by ‑ Supreme Court‑‑‑Held, since the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petition was involved, petitioner, was at liberty to raise the said question (which was desired to be raised before the Supreme Court) at the time of hearing of the petition by the High Court, arid if it is so raised, High Court will address the question on maintainability before taking the case on merits‑‑‑Counsel for the petitioner further stated that his client had not been impleaded as party while counsel for the respondent stated that fie had no objection if the counsel of parties addresses the High Court as respondent‑‑‑Petitioner was accordingly allowed to make submissions in .this respect and he would be deemed to have been impleaded as respondent to the case in the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
This petition is directed against the ad interim order of Lahore High Court, dated 10-6-1998. The main petition is still pending in the High Court and we are told by Mr. M. Bilal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, that the petition is fixed for hearing on 25th of this month. Since the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the p petition is involved, the petitioner is at liberty to raise this question before the High Court at the time of hearing of the petition and if it is so raised, the Court will address the question on maintainability before taking the case on merits. The learned counsel states that his client has not been impleaded as a party. Mr. Bilal states that he has no objection if he is allowed to address the Court as a respondent in that petition. The petitioner is, accordingly, allowed to appear before the High Court and make submission in this regard and he will be deemed to have been impleaded as respondent in the case. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, accordingly. M.B.A./U-8/S Order accordingly.