2006 PLP 3198 (YLR)
MERAJUDDIN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Department and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3198 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, C.J. and Maqbool Baqar, J |
| Parties | MERAJUDDIN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Department and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3198 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3198 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, C.J. and Maqbool Baqar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3198 (YLR) (MERAJUDDIN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Department and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Qadir Jatoi for Petitioner.
- Rasheed Khan for Respondent No.2.
- Manzoor Ahmed for Respondent CDGK.
- M. Sarwar Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh.
- Mr. Rasheed Khan learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the loan in question. He is neither a borrower nor guarantor or mortgager and is unnecessarily wasting the precious time of this Court by filing multiple petitions. With regard to the contention of Ghulam Qadir Jatoi that respondent No.2 has engaged the services of undesirable and Goonda elements to harass the petitioner and female relations of the petitioner. Mr. Rasheed Khan vehemently denied the same and submitted that the Bank is going to file suit in accordance with law for recovery of the above amount and would not resort to illegal action, harassment or coercion either of the petitioner or of his family members.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Constitutional petition earlier filed by petitioner was dismissed by the High Court with direction to petitioner to seek his remedy before a proper forum, but petitioner had again invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court by filing present petition where same facts and circumstances had -been mentioned as were mentioned in earlier constitutional petition
Fresh constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances. M. Sarwar Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh.
Judgment & Decree
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.
Petition bearing No.583 of 2004 filed by the petitioner on the same facts, grounds and circumstances was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16-6-2004 with the direction to the petitioner to seek his remedy before a proper forum. The petitioner has again invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In the present petition, the same facts and circumstances have been mentioned as were mentioned in C.P. No.583 of 2004. Mr. Rasheed Khan learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the loan in question. He is neither a borrower nor guarantor or mortgager and is unnecessarily wasting the precious time of this Court by filing multiple petitions. With regard to the contention of Ghulam Qadir Jatoi that respondent No.2 has engaged the services of undesirable and Goonda elements to harass the petitioner and female relations of the petitioner. Mr. Rasheed Khan vehemently denied the same and submitted that the Bank is going to file suit in accordance with law for recovery of the above amount and would not resort to illegal action, harassment or coercion either of the petitioner or of his family members. For the foregoing reasons, we find that this constitutional petition is not maintainable and stands disposed of on above terms. H.B.T./M-131/K Petition dismissed.