1983 PLP 1056 (SCMR)
ANWAR MASIH — Petitioner Versus MRS. VINNIS OLIVER KOKHAR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1056 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ANWAR MASIH — Petitioner Versus MRS. VINNIS OLIVER KOKHAR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1056 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1056 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1056 (SCMR) (ANWAR MASIH — Petitioner Versus MRS. VINNIS OLIVER KOKHAR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Atta Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1983.
- Ch. Atta Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 18th January, 1977, in I.-C. A. No. 122/76).
Art. 185(3)--Petition for leave to appeal barred by 194 days as against judgment Of Single Judge of High Court but "within time" as far as Intra-Court Appeal was concerned-Supreme Court heard petitioner on Intra-Court Appeal only-Petition requiring Supreme Court to enquire into question of fact and no question of law raised- Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 30‑6‑1976, as also against the judgment of a learned Division Bench dated 18‑1‑1977, dismissing his I.‑C. A. against the aforementioned order. The petition is barred by 194 days, as against the judgment of the learned Single Judge but within time as far as I.‑C. A. is concerned. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length on the impugned judgment dated 1E‑10‑1977 in Annex. A. He only requires the inquiry into question of fact. No question of law has been raised before us. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. M. Z. M.