1970 PLP 425 (SCMR)
LALA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN,
| Citation | 1970 PLP 425 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LALA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 425 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 425 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 425 (SCMR) (LALA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing.: 27th January 1970.
- Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 23rd July 1969, in L. P. A. No. 317 of 1969).
Art. 98-Petition dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel-No ground made out for restoration Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1207 of 1967 which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, on the 27th June 1969. The petitioners and their counsel being absentee, the writ petition was dismissed in default at about 9‑40 a.m. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for restoration of the writ petition but the same was dismissed on the 30th June 1969, on the ground that the explanation given by the petitioners' counsel was not correct. The learned Single Judge observed that the Junior of the petitioners' counsel was not present at the time when the case was called in Court nor did he inform that Mr. Almas Ali was coming. He further observed that it was wrong that Mr. Almas came to the Court within a couple of minutes thereafter. The matter was then taken before the Letters Patent Bench of the West Pakistan High Court and the appeal was dismissed in limine on the 23rd July 1969. A Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court agreed with the view of the learned Single Judge and found no ground to condone the absence of the petitioners and their counsel. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Court below should have condoned the absence of the petitioners' counsel and restored the writ petition for final hearing. We have gone through the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Bench and are satisfied that on the facts of the present case they have exercised the discretion vested in them properly. There is no ground to interfere with that discretion. On merits, the petitioners have no case. The allegation is that the property in dispute is an evacuee trust property. If that is so, it is for the Evacuee Trust Board to take action against the respondents. The petitioners have no locus stand Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Leave refused.