1987 PLP 1850 (SCMR)
through its Director‑General & another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian RIAZ AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1850 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | through its Director‑General & another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian RIAZ AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1850 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1850 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1850 (SCMR) (through its Director‑General & another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian RIAZ AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Repeated adjournments‑‑Grant of‑‑Parties settling matter out of Court‑‑Counsel for petitioner seeking adjournment of case on ground that parties were settling matter out of Court‑ ‑adjournments having been obtained thrice earlier on similar grounds, Supreme Court declined to adjourn case for fourth time on same plea and disposed of matter on merits.
- Khaqan Babar, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. .
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the Judgment dated 13‑3‑1985, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.1423/D of 1983). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O. XII, R. 6‑‑Suit decreed under O. XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. on basis of admissions contained in written statement filed by petitioner‑ Appeal challenging decree dismissed and revision there against also failed‑‑Orders of Courts below being quite legal and proper, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The suit filed by the respondents against the Lahore Development Authority (petitioner No.1 herein) was decreed under Order XII, Rule 6 on the basis of the admissions contained in the written statement filed by the L.D.A. The appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as also their revision before the High Court. This is petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgments and decrees. Mr. Khaqan Babar, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, instead of pressing the petition for leave has prayed for an adjournment of the case on the ground that the parties are settling the matter out of the Court. Adjournment of the case on similar ground has been obtained on three earlier occasions. We are not inclined to adjourn the case again, for the fourth time on the same plea. The orders of the Courts below are quite legal and proper. No ground for interference is made out. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. M.I. /L‑5/S Petition dismissed.