1989 PLP 506 (SCMR)
AKHTAR ALI KHAN and another — Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR and 4 others — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 506 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AKHTAR ALI KHAN and another — Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR and 4 others — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 506 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 506 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 506 (SCMR) (AKHTAR ALI KHAN and another — Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR and 4 others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Akhtar Ali Harder, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1988.
- Sardar Akhtar Ali Harder, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 7-6-1974 in W.P. No.17 of 1972).
Arts.199 & 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.9--Non-joinder of necessary party--Effect--Dismissal of Constitutional petition--Appeal against Constitutional petition dismissed by High Court as a necessary party was not impleaded--Respondents' written statement in answer to Constitutional petition, held, was enough notice to appellants that person not impleaded was a necessary party--Appellants' Constitutional petition having been rightly dismissed for not impleading a necessary party, petition for leave to appeal against same was also dismissed m circumstances. Respondents: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 7th of June, 1974 of the Peshawar High Court, whereby a Constitutional Petition of the appellants regarding the transfer of an urban evacuee property to respondent No.5, was dismissed. The property was first ordered to be transferred to appellant No.1 through the draw of lots. He attempted to transfer it to his wife‑appellant No.2 but on challenge by the respondent No.4, his other estranged wife, the transfer to him itself was set aside as illegal. It was then transferred to respondent No.5. The appellants' Writ Petition failed in the High Court on grounds of: (1) laches; and (2) appellants' failure to implead the purchaser from respondent No.5, a, necessary party. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Hiss explanation regarding point No.2 is that the absent party being a son of respondent No.5 she could have protected his interests. Notwithstanding this, he has admitted that in cases like the present one, the High Court could refuse relief in its writ jurisdiction if all the necessary parties were not impleaded. The respondents' written statement was enough notice to the appellants that the second transferee was a necessary party. In the circumstances of the case, appellants' writ petition having rightly been discussed, this appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./A‑386/S Appeal dismissed.