1987 PLP 1546(1) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOK MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1546(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOK MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1546(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1546(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1546(1) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOK MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhary, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25‑3‑1980 in C.M. Nos. 1883, 84/C‑1980 in R.S.A. No. 723 of 1979). ‑‑‑S. 100 and O. XLI, Rr. 17 & 19‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Second appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑Belated application for restoration of appeal rejected on ground of limitation and gross negligence‑‑No satisfactory explanation for delay of over six months having been given, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner's second appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution. He applied for its restoration but his application was dismissed inter alia on the ground that it was barred by time. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The appeal was dismissed on 16‑9‑1979 and the application for restoration was made on 24‑3‑1980. There is no satisfactory explanation why the petitioner made no efforts to find out as to what had happened to his appeal. The learned Single Judge was therefore right in holding that the appeal was not only barred by time but that it was a case of gross negligence. This is thus not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I. /M‑130/S. Petition dismissed.