1990 PLP 1021 (SCMR)
Mian RAUF HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SADIA SIDDIQUI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1021 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mian RAUF HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SADIA SIDDIQUI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1021 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1021 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1021 (SCMR) (Mian RAUF HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SADIA SIDDIQUI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 1‑8‑1989 of the Lahore High Court in TA. No.169‑C of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Discretion in allowing transfer application moved by respondent, having been properly exercised by High Court and Court having not been able to discover any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the order of High Court, leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Discretion in allowing transfer application moved by respondent, having been properly exercised by High Court and Court having not been able to discover any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the order of High Court, leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. .T.‑‑Leave to .,appeal has been sought; against the order of the High Court allowing the transfer application moved by the respondent with regard to a suit pending at Depalpur. It has, by impugned order, been transferred to Lahore; mainly, on the ground of convenience. After hearing the learned counsel at considerable length we have not been able to discover any infirmity in the impugned order, legal or otherwise. The discretion having been properly exercised by the High Court, in the circumstances of this case, leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./M‑137/S Leave refused.