1992 PLP 1510 (CLC)
Mst. ZATUN and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) PUNJAB
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1510 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalilur‑Rehman Khan and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZATUN and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) PUNJAB |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1510 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1510 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalilur‑Rehman Khan and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1510 (CLC) (Mst. ZATUN and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) PUNJAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zaheer Zulfiqar for Maqbool Sadiq for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Intra‑Court Appeal‑‑‑Address of respondent as shown in memo of parties in, appeal as also in earlier Constitutional petition was different from address of legal representatives of respondent given in appeal and ,Constitutional petition‑‑‑Description of addresses so given was incorrect and due to that mistake decision of the case was being delayed on account of non‑service on legal representatives of deceased respondent‑‑‑High Court directed that in case correct particulars were not provided by appellant, appeal should stand dismissed for non‑prosecution without further order. Nemo for Legal Heirs of Respondent No.2. Sher Zaman Khan and Ch. Noor Ilahi for Legal Heirs of Respondent No.3,
Judgment & Decree
Intra‑Court Appeal No. 267 of 1979, decided or 29th June, 1991. Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Intra‑Court Appeal‑‑‑Address of respondent as shown in memo of parties in, appeal as also in earlier Constitutional petition was different from address of legal representatives of respondent given in appeal and ,Constitutional petition‑‑‑Description of addresses so given was incorrect and due to that mistake decision of the case was being delayed on account of non‑service on legal representatives of deceased respondent‑‑‑High Court directed that in case correct particulars were not provided by appellant, appeal should stand dismissed for non‑prosecution without further order. Zaheer Zulfiqar for Maqbool Sadiq for Appellant. Nemo for Legal Heirs of Respondent No.2. Sher Zaman Khan and Ch. Noor Ilahi for Legal Heirs of Respondent No.3, As per noting on the Tablaq, registered Post Cards were issued to respondents obviously at the address given in the memo of parties i.e. 103‑C, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad. The notices previously issued at this address were returned with the report that the addressees do not reside at the said address. We have noted that in the writ petition as well as in this appeal the address of legal representatives of Ch. Anwar Ali Khan has been given as 103‑C Peoples Colony while in the memo of parties in the appeal as also the writ petition Ch. Anwar Ali Khan has been shown as resident of 105‑C, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad. The description of the addresses so given is obviously not correct. Let the appellant verify whether the legal representatives of eh. Anwar Ali Khan respondent No.2, are residing in house No. 105‑C, Peoples Colony or not and then provide fresh correct particulars within three weeks. The decision of this case is being delayed on account of non‑service of the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2. In case the correct particulars are not provided as directed the appeal shall stand dismissed for non‑prosecution without further order. H.B.T./Z‑223/L Order accordingly.