1982 PLP 354 (SCMR)
AMIR DIN AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 354 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMIR DIN AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan General Clauses AM (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 354 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan General Clauses AM (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 354 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 354 (SCMR) (AMIR DIN AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- --S. 27--Presumption-Notice sent to petitioner's counsel by registered post acknowledgment due requiring him to appear on a specified date-Presumption arises of notice having been duly received by addressee-Counsel even not filing affidavit on his own in support of assertion of having not been served-Contention as to no notice of date of hearing given to petitioner repelled.
- Raja Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 25th October, 1980.
- Raja Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11th November, 1974 passed in L. P. A. No. 654/66).
Judgment & Decree
Raja Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th October, 1980. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN J.‑L. P. A. 654 of 1966 which was transferred to Bahawalpur Circuit was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur on filth November, 1974 on merits. Neither the party was present nor did their counsel appear on that date. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the High Court.
2. The petition is barred by 64 days arid it has been submitted before us that since neither the counsel nor the party knew that the case had been disposed of without hearing, the period of limitation for appeal should start from the date of the knowledge.
3. We are afraid we do not see eye to eye with the submission of the learned counsel, for the judgment of the High Court very clearly states that notice was sent to learned counsel for the petitioners on 22nd of October, 1974 by registered post acknowledgment due. There is a presumption under the General Clauses Act that if this has been done the notice would be deemed to have been duly received by the addressee. The learned counsel has not even filed an affidavit on his own in support of the assertion that he was not served.
4. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.