1989 SCMR 1616 (PLP)
ISLAMUDDIN GHORI‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL, GHAFOOR and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1616 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Nasim Hasan Shah, |
| Parties | ISLAMUDDIN GHORI‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL, GHAFOOR and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1616 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1616 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Nasim Hasan Shah,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1616 (PLP) (ISLAMUDDIN GHORI‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL, GHAFOOR and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Walayat Umar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.,
- Date of hearing: 22nd April. 1989.
- Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23‑4 1979 in Intra‑Court Appeal No.106 of 1979). ‑‑‑OXXVI, R.1‑‑Review‑‑Petitioner failed to appear and defend the appeal at the hearing when main appeal was disposed of‑‑Petitioner, having lost that opportunity, when perhaps he could have been permitted to raise the contention advanced at review stage, he could not be allowed to re‑agitate the matter and advance arguments thereon in review petition‑‑Objection to the competency of Letters Patent Appeal having not been raised at the time of its decision, petitioner could not challenge the same al review stage. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.
Judgment & Decree
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑This petition seeks review of this Court's judgment, dated 27‑10‑1984 whereby the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the officer notified by the Provincial Government under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975, for disposal of the application for transfer filed by the appellant in accordance with law.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. His main contention in support of the petition is that L.P.A. No.62 of 1975 filed by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court was not competent under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 and, therefore, the adjudication made in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on merits stood intact with the result that the second writ petition filed by the appellant was barred on the principle of res judicata.
3. We find no substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel as in our opinion it does not furnish the basis for interference with the judgment in review jurisdiction. It may be pointed out that the petitioner failed to appear and defend the appeal at the hearing when the main appeal was disposed of. Having lost that opportunity, when perhaps he could have been permitted to raise the contention now advanced, he cannot be allowed to re‑agitate and seek to advance arguments in this review petition, which ought to have been advanced at the hearing of the main appeal. Additionally, the petitioner, who was a party to L.P.A. No.62 of 1975, did not raise this objection at the time of decision of the said L.P.A. He cannot, therefore, now be heard to challenge the competence of the said appeal. There is no ground made out for review the judgment impugned in this review petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./1‑77/S Petition dismissed.