1985 PLP 1011 (SCMR)
Sheikh MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1011 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Sheikh MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1011 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1011 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1011 (SCMR) (Sheikh MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th March, 1985.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on- Record or Petitioner.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 31‑10‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Writ Petition No.303 of 1983). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against remand order passed by High Court‑‑Not pressed on plea that decision on petition might prejudice case‑‑Petition dismissed with observation that order of dismissal shall in no way prejudice petitioner's case pending in High Court. M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on- Record or Petitioner. Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑After arguing the matter at some length learned counsel states that the decision of this petition by this Court might prejudice the petitioner's case in a writ petition filed in the High Court from the judgment in appeal by the District Court passed after the High Court had passed the impugned remand order. He accordingly, without prejudice to the petitioners right to press all the available points in the High Court, has not pressed this petition. He did so also on the undertaking by the learned counsel for the respondent that the eviction order impugned before the High Court in the Writ Petition now pending, would not be executed for 15 days so as to enable the petitioner to seek and obtain a fresh stay order in the said Writ petition by making an application before the High Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not pressed with the observation that this order shall in no way prejudice the petitioners case pending in the High Court. M.I. Order accordingly.