1989 PLP 988 (MLD)
Maulana ABU MUHAMMAD QASMI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mrs. BENAZIR BHUTTO and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 988 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, CJ., Muhammad Afzal Lone, Mahboob Ahmad, Muhaninad Ilyas and Lehrasap Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Maulana ABU MUHAMMAD QASMI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mrs. BENAZIR BHUTTO and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Islamic Jurisprudence‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 988 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Islamic Jurisprudence‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 988 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, CJ., Muhammad Afzal Lone, Mahboob Ahmad, Muhaninad Ilyas and Lehrasap Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 988 (MLD) (Maulana ABU MUHAMMAD QASMI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mrs. BENAZIR BHUTTO and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abrar Majal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Faith‑‑"Shaheed"‑‑Determination of‑‑Jurisdiction of Court‑‑Premise whether one is "Shaheed" or not is a matter which Allah alone knows and decides‑ Temporal Courts have no jurisdiction to determine such a question.
Judgment & Decree
3. The premise whether one is "Shaheed" or not is a matter which Allah alone knows and decides; temporal Courts have no jurisdiction to determine such a question. So was the submission of Mr. Rashid Murtaza Oureshi, Advocate who presented an application to he impleaded as a party m the titled petition.
4. For the foregoing reasons, these, petitions cannot be entertained by this Court and are accordingly dismissed in limme. C.M. 1/89 Muhammad Ismail Chaudhri for Petitioner. Under instructions from the petitioner the learned counsel submitted that he does not press this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. W.P. No. 546/1989 For reasons recorded in our order of even date in W.P. No.43/1989, this petition is dismissed in limine. C.M. No. 2/1989 In view of disposal of the main petition today, no further order is called for on this application. Dismissed. H.B.T./A‑588/L. Writ petitions and C.M. applications dismissed.