1988 PLP 350 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 350 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 350 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 350 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 350 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yousaf Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners,
- Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(Application for review of the order of this Court dated 6-11-1985, passed in Civil Appeal No. 308 of 1985).
Art.188--Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXV1, R.1--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXII, R.4--Review--Death of one of respondents before hearing of appeal--Court not informed--Appeal decided without notice to heirs of deceased respondent--Effect of--Review petition filed by heirs of deceased respondent allowed and main appeal ordered to be refixed for hearing with due notice to respondents.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioners seek review of the order of this Court, dated 6-11-1985 allowing Civil Appeal No.308 of 1985.
2. It is brought to our notice that Kh. Muhammad Afzal respondent No.2 in the appeal had died earlier before the appeal came up for hearing and his heirs (the present petitioners) were neither served nor heard. It is admitted that this fact was not brought to our notice at the time of the hearing of the appeal, but it is explained that since Kh. Muhammad Afzal was not represented, the counsel fore the other respondent did not choose to inform this Court about this fact.
3. After hearing the counsel for' the parties we feel that therefore, a fit case for acceptance of the Review Petition. The same is, therefore, allowed and the main appeal (No. 308 of 1985) shall be refixed for hearing after due notice to Kh. Muhammad Sadiq and the other respondents. M.I. /M-282/S Order accordingly.