1994SCMR2284 (PLP)
Mian MUHAMMAD JAVED SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HANIFA BEGUM and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994SCMR2284 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ., Mir Hazar Khan Khoso and |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD JAVED SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HANIFA BEGUM and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR2284 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR2284 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ., Mir Hazar Khan Khoso and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR2284 (PLP) (Mian MUHAMMAD JAVED SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HANIFA BEGUM and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate -on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Dates of hearing: 12th, 13th and 14th September, 1994
- "Notice to Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate, for 25‑8‑1994. He is also directed to bring with him the blank transfer deeds which according to Mr. Javed Shafi as per his statement dated 8‑8‑1994 were handed over to him."
- 3. The impugned order of the High Court, reproduced above, is not adverse to the interest of the petitioner, in any manner: Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate, has been simply directed to bring with him the blank transfer deeds which, according to the statement of the petitioner himself, were handed over to him. If the petitioner has any objection to the production of the documents in Court, he can raise objection there, which, of course, would be attended to and decided on merits by the said Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the 'order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18‑8‑1994 passed in CO. 83/94). (a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 76‑‑‑Constitution, of: Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against interlocutory order by the High Court to the effect that notice be issued to the counsel by name with the direction to bring with him the blank transfer deeds which according to petitioner, as per his statement were handed over to him‑‑‑Order of the High Court being not adverse to the interest of the petitioner in any manner; petition for leave to appeal against such order was dismissed by Supreme Court on the short ground of non maintainability. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against interlocutoty order of High Court‑‑‑Impugned order of High Court was not adverse to the interest of the petitioner in any manner‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground on non‑maintainability.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against interlocutoty order of High Court‑‑‑Impugned order of High Court was not adverse to the interest of the petitioner in any manner‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground on non‑maintainability. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate -on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Dr. A. Basit, Advocate and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 12th, 13th and 14th September, 1994 MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 18‑8‑1994 passed by the learned Company Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.O. No. 83/1994, which reads as under: "Notice to Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate, for 25‑8‑1994. He is also directed to bring with him the blank transfer deeds which according to Mr. Javed Shafi as per his statement dated 8‑8‑1994 were handed over to him."
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we propose to dismiss this petition on the short ground on non‑maintainability, so, it would be unnecessary and sheer waste of time to mention the facts of the case or discuss the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The impugned order of the High Court, reproduced above, is not adverse to the interest of the petitioner, in any manner: Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate, has been simply directed to bring with him the blank transfer deeds which, according to the statement of the petitioner himself, were handed over to him. If the petitioner has any objection to the production of the documents in Court, he can raise objection there, which, of course, would be attended to and decided on merits by the said Court.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./M‑2140/S Petition dismissed