1989 PLP (1) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BASHI R — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHI R — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (1) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BASHI R — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of Lahore High Court dated 30-5-1982 in C.M.S. Nos. 2, 3, 4 of 1982 in W.P. 449-R-74).
Art. 185(3)--Petition for (cave to appeal--Time-barred petition--Condonation of delay--Petition barred by six days--Satisfactory explanation or sufficient cause not given for condnation of delay--Petition dismissed as barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition for (cave to appeal‑‑Time‑barred petition‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Petition barred by six days‑‑Satisfactory explanation or sufficient cause not given for condnation of delay‑‑Petition dismissed as barred by time. Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th July, 1988. GHULAM MUJADDID. J.‑‑Muhammad Bashir son of Muhammad Ramzan resident of Jahangir Bazar, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 30‑5‑1982 whereby the learned Judge of Lahore. High Court declined to restore the petition ant; refused to condone the delay. The petition before us is also barred by six days. We called upon the learned counsel to first satisfy us that there was good ground to condone the delay. Learned counsel could not give any satisfactory explanation nor could show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. This petition is accordingly dismissed as barred by six days. M.Y.H./M‑578/S Petition dismissed.