1989 PLP 399 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus SYED ABDULLAH SHAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 399 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilhash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus SYED ABDULLAH SHAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 399 (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 399 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilhash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 399 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus SYED ABDULLAH SHAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1988.
- A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 26-5-1988 of the Baluchistan High Court in Civil Petition (Writ Petition No. 290 of 1987).
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention, inter alia, that the case having been remanded by Supreme Court to the Member, Board of Revenue, the final decision was expected to be taken by it and even if the order of remand passed by the Member, Board of Revenue was found to be not justified in law the matter should have been entrusted to another Member, Board of Revenue for its decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.‑‑The dispute between the parties is pending since 1950and after protracted proceedings the matter reached right upto this Court in 1985. It was disposed of by an order of this Court dated 22‑12‑1980 whereby the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the proceedings remanded to the Member, Board of Revenue for re‑hearing of the revision petition in accordance with law. In view of the terribly long period that this dispute had being lingering on the hope was expressed that the learned Member, Board of Revenue will be able to dispose of the revision petition within two months of the receipt of this Court's decision and the records of the case. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, however, disposed of the matter after about ten months (by his order dated 25‑10‑1987) but unfortunately instead of deciding it on mertis remanded the case for trial afresh to the Deputy , Commissioner, Quetta, in accordance with law. This unfortunate order was challenged Constitutional jurisdiction the High and the learned High Courts pleased Constitutional petition and set aside the order of remand passed by the Member, Board of Revenue dated 25‑20‑1987. However; the High Court instead of asking another Member, Board of Revenue to decide the matter on the merits decided to restore the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner, Quetta Division. The case is now before us again wherein the last mentioned order of the High Court is questioned. We nave heard Mr. A.R. Sheikh in support of this petition. We consider that the contention, inter alia, that the, case having been remanded by this Court to the Member, Board of Revenue, the final decision was expected to be taken by it and even if the order of remand passed by the Member, Board of Revenue was found to be not justified in law the matter should have been entrusted to another Member, Board of Revenue for its decision on merits, requires further consideration. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs. 10,
000. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and fixed for hearing during the next session of this Court at Quetta. M.A.K./A‑369/S Leave granted.