1987 PLP 1530 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1530 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑O. XXII, R. 3(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Writ petition, abatement of‑‑Plea raised that provisions of Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) which dealt with abatement of cases were of a procedural nature and would be of a retrospective effect, with the result that in light of those provisions, there would be no abatement of writ petition‑‑Leave having already been granted to consider this point in several other cases, leave was allowed in instant case as well.‑‑Abatement. |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1530 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1530 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑O. XXII, R. 3(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Writ petition, abatement of‑‑Plea raised that provisions of Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) which dealt with abatement of cases were of a procedural nature and would be of a retrospective effect, with the result that in light of those provisions, there would be no abatement of writ petition‑‑Leave having already been granted to consider this point in several other cases, leave was allowed in instant case as well.‑‑Abatement. bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1530 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 16‑1‑1976, in Writ Petition 704 of 1969). ‑‑‑O. XXII, R. 3(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Writ petition, abatement of‑‑Plea raised that provisions of Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) which dealt with abatement of cases were of a procedural nature and would be of a retrospective effect, with the result that in light of those provisions, there would be no abatement of writ petition‑‑Leave having already been granted to consider this point in several other cases, leave was allowed in instant case as well.‑‑[Abatement]. Ch. Shafqat Ali v. Rao Abdus Sattar 1974 Law Notes 149 and Ghulam Haider v. Mst. Raj Bhari and others 1975 S C M R 252 ref.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑Learned counsel submits that provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance which deal with abatement of cases are of a procedural nature and would be of a retrospective effect, with the result, that in the light of those provisions there would be no abatement of the writ petition in this case. He submits to consider this point leave to appeal has already been granted by this Court in Ch. Shafqat Ali v. Rao Abdus Sattar 1074 Law Notes 149; Ghulam Haider v. Mst. Raj Bhari and others 1975 S C M R 252 and Mst. Safia Begum, etc. v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, etc. (in which leave was granted on 2‑3‑1981). Leave is granted in this case also. To be heard along with the last mentioned case. Security Rs.2,
000. M.I./G‑30/S Leave granted.