1983 PLP 604 (CLC)
SHAHBAZ KHAN‑Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND OTHERS Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 604 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan and Abaid Ullah Khan, J |
| Parties | SHAHBAZ KHAN‑Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND OTHERS Respondent |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (X11 of 1972)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 604 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (X11 of 1972)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 604 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan and Abaid Ullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 604 (CLC) (SHAHBAZ KHAN‑Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND OTHERS Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Karim Malik for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 3 (1) & (2) read with Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980), S. 18‑Interlocutory order passed in writ jurisdiction by Single Judge, held, not appealable ‑Provisions of amending Ordinance refer to S.. 3 (t)‑Bar contained in S. 3 (2) still applicable.‑[Appeal (civil)]
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 3 (1) & (2) read with Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980), S. 18‑Interlocutory order passed in writ jurisdiction by Single Judge, held, not appealable ‑Provisions of amending Ordinance refer to S.. 3 (t)‑Bar contained in S. 3 (2) still applicable.‑[Appeal (civil)] A. Karim Malik for Appellant. The learned counsel challenges an interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5722‑
80. The appeal, however, is barred by subsection (3) of section 3 of the La Reforms Ordinance as no such appeal lies against an interlocutory order. The learned counsel has referred to Ordinance X of 1980, the relevant portion of which reads as under :‑ "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 of tli~ Law Re. m= forms Ordinance, 1972 (XII of 1972) an appeal shall lie to the Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an inter ‑ , locutory order made by a Single Judge of that Court, in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction." This amendment, however, refers only' to the cases 'arise in under section 3 (1). The case in question came up before the learned Single' Judge under section 3 (2) where the bar contained is till applicable. In view of the above this Inter Court Appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.