1976 PLP 401 (SCMR)
SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AKHTAR SULTANA‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 401 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournment‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Duty of counsel‑Asking for adjournment of case by telephonic message through an advocate‑on‑Record‑Most discourteous on part of counsel.‑‑Adjournment‑Practice and procedure. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Salahuddin Ahmed, |
| Parties | SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AKHTAR SULTANA‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 401 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 401 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournment‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Duty of counsel‑Asking for adjournment of case by telephonic message through an advocate‑on‑Record‑Most discourteous on part of counsel.‑‑Adjournment‑Practice and procedure. bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Salahuddin Ahmed,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 401 (SCMR) (SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AKHTAR SULTANA‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- --- O. XVII, r. I‑Adjournment‑Neither appellant nor his counsel present An Advocate‑on‑Record stating to have received a telephonic message from counsel asking for adjournment but Advo cate‑on‑Record for appellant absent‑Respondent also not present Adjournment disallowed and appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution.‑ [Adjournment].
- M. Mahboob Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record (both absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 30th October. 1975.
- ‑‑ O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournment‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Duty of counsel‑Asking for adjournment of case by telephonic message through an advocate‑on‑Record‑Most discourteous on part of counsel.‑‑[Adjournment‑Practice and procedure].
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB AL1, J.‑‑Neither the appellant nor his counsel is present. Even the Advocate‑on‑Record is absent. It is stated by Khawaja Mushtaq, Advocate‑on‑Record that a telephonic message had been sent by Mr. Maqbul Elahi Malik who is to appear for the appellant that he is busy at Lahore and on (that account the hearing of the appeal be adjourned.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 3033‑8 of 1962). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournment‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Duty of counsel‑Asking for adjournment of case by telephonic message through an advocate‑on‑Record‑Most discourteous on part of counsel.‑‑[Adjournment‑Practice and procedure]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB AL1, J.‑‑Neither the appellant nor his counsel is present. Even the Advocate‑on‑Record is absent. It is stated by Khawaja Mushtaq, Advocate‑on‑Record that a telephonic message had been sent by Mr. Maqbul Elahi Malik who is to appear for the appellant that he is busy at Lahore and on (that account the hearing of the appeal be adjourned. To say the least Mr. Maqbul Elahi has been most discourteous to this Court by asking for adjournment by a telephonic message. In the result the appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution. As the respondent has also not put in appearance, there will be no order as to Costs. Appeal dismissed.