1994SCMR1795 (PLP)
UNITED BANK LTD, through Senior Vice‑President, Zonal Office, Faisalabad‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM RAZA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994SCMR1795 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LTD, through Senior Vice‑President, Zonal Office, Faisalabad‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM RAZA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules (1980)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR1795 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules (1980)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR1795 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR1795 (PLP) (UNITED BANK LTD, through Senior Vice‑President, Zonal Office, Faisalabad‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM RAZA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Bokhari, Advocate instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Review from the judgment dated 10‑3‑1993 of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1263 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑O.XXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185 & 188‑‑ Review‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment whereby petitioner's appeal was not disposed of on merits but on the basis of order passed in another appeal‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted in petitioner's case on the ground that in a similar case leave had already been granted to consider the same question‑‑‑Said appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner's appeal was also dismissed without entering into the merits of the case‑‑‑Petition for review was supported on the plea that in yet another appeal, leave to appeal had been granted on the basis of said dismissed appeal and in that case appeal had been allowed in spite of dismissal of appeal on basis of which leave had been granted‑‑‑Dismissal of petitioner's appeal was not justified in circumstances and order passed in dismissing the same would stand reviewed and was set aside‑‑‑Petitioner's appeal would stand revived for decision on merits. Circle Executive United Bank Ltd. v. Alain Zeb and others C.P.S.LA. No. 900 of 1988 and National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court Nd.5, Faisalabad 1993 SCMR 672 rel.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ. ‑‑‑This petition seeks review of this Court's dated 10‑3‑1993 whereby Civil Appeal No. 1263 of 1990 was dismissed.
2. In its order dated 10‑3‑1993 it was said, "we observe that leave to appeal was granted in this case observing that in a similar case namely Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 900 of 1988 titled "Circle Executive United Bank Ltd. v. Alain Zeb and others" leave had already been granted to consider the same question. The said matter, we further observe, has been dismissed as withdrawn." Accordingly the appeal in the present case was also dismissed without entering into the merits of the case.
3. In support of this petition for review it is submitted that the appeal should have been disposed of on merits and not on the short ground relied on for dismissing it. Learned counsel submits that this Court, on the basis of the order passed in C.P.S.LA. No. 900 of 1988 titled "Circle Executive United Bank Ltd. v. Alam Zeb and others" had granted leave in yet another case titled "National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad and in that case the appeal has been allowed (judgment therein is reported as 1993 SCMR 672). The dismissal of the appeal in this case was accordingly not justified. This contention, we think, is correct and merits to be accepted. Accordingly the order dated 10‑3‑1993 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1263 of 1990 shall stand reviewed and is set aside.
4. The result is that appeal CA. No. 1263 of 1990 will stand revived for decision on merits. Notice in the appeal shall issue to the respondents.
5. Meanwhile, payment of back‑benefits to the respondent No. 1 shall be stayed. AA./U‑56/S Review accepted.