2003 PLP 1848 (SCMR)
Haji ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus SARDAR FAISAL ZAIB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1848 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | Haji ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus SARDAR FAISAL ZAIB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance (V of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1848 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance (V of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1848 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1848 (SCMR) (Haji ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus SARDAR FAISAL ZAIB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Wahid Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-6-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 10314 of 2001).
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
The nomination papers of the private respondent for the forthcoming Local Body Elections which are going to be held on 2-7-2001, have been accepted by acceptance of his Constitutional petition by the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court through the impugned order dated 20-6-2001.
2. The dispute raised by the petitioner is about the age of the respondent and his character. According to him, he had prepared a number of documents in which he has shown his age on different dates.
3. At this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and to deprive the respondent from contesting the elections. All the questions raised by the petitioner are necessarily questions of facts which can be determined after recording elaborate evidence which cannot be done in these proceedings because they are summary in nature. It will be A open to the petitioner to raise these questions in the election petition in case the respondent is elected in the election which question shall be decided by the Election Tribunal after recording evidence uninfluenced by the orders passed in the present proceedings by the Returning Officer and the learned Judge of the High Court.
4. Subject to the above observations, this petition stands disposed of being premature. M.H./A-325/S Order accordingly.