SCMR 1989

1989 PLP 327 (SCMR)

NAMDAR and others — Petitioners Versus ALI ZULQARNAIN, ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONPHR and other Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No: 422 of 1982, decided on 31st Ally, 1988.
Honorable Judges
Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saoad Jan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 327 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saoad Jan, JJ
Parties NAMDAR and others — Petitioners Versus ALI ZULQARNAIN, ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONPHR and other Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 327 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 327 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saoad Jan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 327 (SCMR) (NAMDAR and others — Petitioners Versus ALI ZULQARNAIN, ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONPHR and other Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Qazi Abdul Hayee, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
  • Nemo for respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 31st .July, 1988.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the order dated 4-3-1982 of Lahore High Court in Review Petition 12/82). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-.

Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--No error of jaw found in (he order of High Court impugned in the petition--Leave to appeal refused.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑No error of jaw found in (he order of High Court impugned in the petition‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Qazi Abdul Hayee, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for respondents. Date of hearing: 31st .July, 1988. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑This Court by its judgment dated 14‑3‑1982 observed, It is clear, therefore, that (lie petitioners want us to interfere with the order of High Court on the basis of the material not produced before it. This obviously cannot be done. The petitioners may move the High Court again for the review of the order if the law permits, on the basis of this material." The petitioners accordingly moved the High Court for review. The, review petition came up before a learned Judge of the Lahore,‑ High Court who by order dated 3‑4‑;982 dismissed the same. Namdar and others now, seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 3‑4‑1982. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. But we don't think it is a case for grant of leave because there is. no error of law in the order of the High Court dismissing the review petition. M.Y.H./N‑96/S Petition dismissed.