2010 PLP 326 (GBLR)
HASSAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus SHAHZADA KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 326 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqoob, J |
| Parties | HASSAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus SHAHZADA KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 326 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 326 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqoob, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 326 (GBLR) (HASSAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus SHAHZADA KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XVI, R.1(2)
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)
Application for summoning the witness
Application under O.XVI, R.1(2), C.P.C. neither disclosed any reason for not including the name of witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses nor that evidence of those witnesses was necessary for just decision of the case
Complete particulars of the witnesses were not mentioned in the application; it appeared that petitioner by moving such an incomplete and vague application, intended to prolong the proceedings in the suit
Counsel for the petitioner had not been able to point out any jurisdictional error or illegality in the order calling for interference of the Supreme Appellate Court
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the Chief Court and perused the record we have not been able to find out any good or sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Chief Court. The application under Order XVI, Rule 1(2), C.P.C. neither disclosed any reason for not including the name of witnesses mentioned therein in the list of witnesses nor that evidence of these witnesses was necessary for just decision of the case, so much so there is no mention of the complete particulars of the witnesses in the application. It appears that petitioner by moving such an incomplete and vague application intended to prolong the proceedings in the suit. Be that as it may the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any jurisdictional error or illegality in the order calling for interference of this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./61/Glt.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.