1987 PLP 1821 (SCMR)
DUMAR COAL COMPANY Petitioner Versus AKBAR KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1821 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | DUMAR COAL COMPANY Petitioner Versus AKBAR KHAN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1821 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1821 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1821 (SCMR) (DUMAR COAL COMPANY Petitioner Versus AKBAR KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Yaqub K. Eusufzai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Baluchistan High Court dated 10‑11‑1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby upholding the order of the Additional District Judge, Quetta by which petitioner's application for the restoration of their previous application was for setting aside the order of dismissal of a suit filed by them against the respondent due to their failure to attend the Court on the date of hearing. After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel in support of the petition we find that the impugned judgment has been passed in legitimate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in the High Court, and on the facts and circumstances of the case interference by this Court would not be justified at all. No point of law is involved and by dismissing petitioner's application the High Court has also not violated any principle of law. In fact, the High Court has acted in full accord with the principles laid down in certain reported cases. There is therefore no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. M . I . / D‑7 / S Petition dismissed.