2003 PLP 1125 (CLC)
Mst. AMINA BAI and others — Petitioners Versus K.B.C.A. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1125 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. AMINA BAI and others — Petitioners Versus K.B.C.A. and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1125 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1125 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1125 (CLC) (Mst. AMINA BAI and others — Petitioners Versus K.B.C.A. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saalim Salam Ansari for Petitioners.
- Rasheeduddin Ahmed for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Misstatement before High Court-- Contempt of Court proceedings, initiation of
Authorities filed written statement wherein misstatement had been made by them
Effect-- Petitioner might have withdrawn the petition under the bona fide belief that the Authorities were alive to and interested in performing their duty, and such belief was caused by a false statement
High Court directed that the earlier order needed to be recalled and the case be decided on merits
High Court further directed the official condemner to appear in person and show cause why action under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, not be taken against him for making a deliberately false statement in the parawise comments before the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Rasheeduddin Ahmed for Respondent No.
1. Suleman Habibullah, A.A.-G. Date of hearing; 31st January, 2003 Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 7-3-1994 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 in their parawise comments had clearly stated that they were helpless in performing their statutory duty on the ground that they have been restrained from demolishing the premises by interim order passed by VI Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, in Suit No.1112 of 1993. Therefore since it was stated in Court that the injunction had since been vacated the petitioner in good faith believed that the respondent No.1 would now perform its duty ordained by law and therefore did not press the petition. However, subsequently the petitioner came to know that the interim injunction had been vacated almost three months prior to the date of hearing in this Court and the contentions in the written statement to the effect that "the respondent No. 1 is helpless due to status quo order" was false and fraudulent. In all fairness we are of the view that the petitioner might haves withdrawn the petition under the bona. fide belief that the respondent No.1 was alive to and interested in performing its duty, and such believe A was caused by a false statement, the order dated 7-3-1994 needs to be recalled and the case be decided on merits. This application is accordingly allowed.
2. The alleged condemner is required to appeal in person on they next date of hearing and show cause why action under the Contempt of Court Act should not be taken against him for making a deliberately false statement in the parawise comments dated 7-3-1994 filed before this Court. To come up on 26-2-2003. M.H./A-433/K Order accordingly.