1998 PLP 246 (SCMR)
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE REGION, KARACHI and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SHAM MUHAMMAD BALOCH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 246 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ., Raja Afrasiab Khan and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE REGION, KARACHI and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SHAM MUHAMMAD BALOCH‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Judgment‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 246 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Judgment‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 246 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ., Raja Afrasiab Khan and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 246 (SCMR) (REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE REGION, KARACHI and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SHAM MUHAMMAD BALOCH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate -on‑Record for Appellants.
- Muhammad Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate -on-Record for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Decision was reserved by Single Judge of High Court and the same was announced by another Judge of High Court on 7‑7‑1996‑‑‑Some Judges of High Court were laid off from 16‑6‑1996 including the Single Judge who had reserved judgment‑‑‑Single Judge after having been laid off, had written and signed judgment on 7‑7‑1996 on which date same was announced by another Judge‑‑ Single Judge who had written and signed such judgment being not Judge on 7‑7‑1996, his decision was set aside and case was remitted to High Court for hearing the same afresh and deciding the same within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.
Respondent before us has filed a suit for declaration in the Court of 2nd Senior Civil Judge, South Karachi, which is pending. His grievance in the suit is that his birth date has been wrongly entered into the gradation list of 1991 in which, according to him, the year of his birth should have been shown as 1938 instead of 1936. During the pendency of the suit he filed application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for interim relief and he has been granted status quo ante. Meanwhile he has retired from service as he reached the age of sixty on 8-1-1996 on the consideration that his birth date is 9-1-1936 which is disputed by him. The appellant/department feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the learned District Judge, which is dismissed and then revision was filed in the High Court, which has also been dismissed.
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the hearing of the revision took place in the High Court and the judgment was reserved on 12-6-1996 as the revision was heard by Mr. Abdul Majeed Khanzada, J. and was announced on 7-7-1996 by Mr. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah. It is further submitted that in the meantime judgment in the Judges Case (Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan) was announced by the Supreme Court on 20th March, 1996 and later meeting took place of the Committee of the Chief Justices in which decision was taken to lay off some Judges of the High Courts whose appointments were not to be regularised. Compliance was made and in i consequence some Judges of Sindh High Court were laid off from 16-6-1996 including Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Khanzada. After having been laid off, the judgment was written and signed on 7-7-1996 on which date it was announced by another Judge and on the day Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Khanzada was not Judge of the High Court. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court in the revision and direct that the revision should be deemed to be pending, which is to be disposed of within two weeks from today. The appeal is allowed in the terms stated above. Any observation in the leave granting order will not come in the way of the respondent. A.A/R-10/S Appeal allowed