2010 PLP 583 (SCMR)
ABDUL KHALID and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 583 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL KHALID and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 583 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 583 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 583 (SCMR) (ABDUL KHALID and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Latif Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 11-11-2000 of the High Court Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad passed in C.P. No.D-174 of 2009).
Art. 185(3)
Impugned order of the High Court had been passed by consent of the parties
Counsel of the petitioners, however, stated that the petitioners or their counsel in the High Court had not consented to the sail order and also referred to an affidavit of the said counsel
Held, two Judges of the High Court having noted in the impugned judgment that consent was given by or on behalf of the petitioners, contention of petitioners was repelled
Appeal to Supreme Court was not competent, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioners impugn the order, dated 11-11-2009 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court. It is stated in the said order that the same has been passed by consent of the parties. If this is indeed so, then an appeal would not be competent. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, stated that the petitioners or their learned counsel in the High Court had not consented to the said order. He also referred to an affidavit of the said counsel. We are afraid, this contention cannot be accepted considering that two honourable Judges of the High Court have noted that consent was given by or on behalf of the petitioners.
2. In the foregoing circumstances, this petition is dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioners from moving an appropriate application before the High Court, if so advised. M.A.K./A-3/SC Order accordingly.