1989 PLP 1392 (SCMR)
Mst. ZAIDAT Petitioner Versus SHAHADAT and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1392 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Allah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZAIDAT Petitioner Versus SHAHADAT and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1392 (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 1392 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Allah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1392 (SCMR) (Mst. ZAIDAT Petitioner Versus SHAHADAT and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑3‑1984 in W.P. No.1247 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.l99‑‑Ex parte decree was set aside by Trial Court in second round of litigation after a remand by the District Court‑‑Revision against setting asiae of ex parte decree was dismissed‑‑Revisional order having been challenged in the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction was also without any success‑ Revisional order if passed by Disti set Judge, held, was net liable to be set aside in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for possession, against the dismissal by the High Court of her writ petition; which had arisen out of the setting aside of an ex parte decree in her favour. The ex parte decree passed against the respondents side was set aside by the trial Court in second round of litigation after a remand by the District Court. The petitioner's Civil Revision against the setting aside of ex parte decree was dismissed. The revisional order having been challenged in the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction without any success, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal. No stay order was passed by this Court, regarding the continuance of proceedings after the setting aside of the ex parte decree. Learned counsel has informed that the suit having been decided on merits, a petition for leave to appeal filed separately by the petitioner, is now pending against the decision of the case on merits. After hearing the learned counsel, in the circumstance of this case, we agree with the High Court that the revisional order passed by the District Judge was not liable to be set aside in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./Z‑55/S Leave refused