1989 PLP 1201(1) (SCMR)
HAQUE NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1201(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | HAQUE NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1201(1) (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 1989 PLP 1201(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah 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 1201(1) (SCMR) (HAQUE NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 24th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑4‑80 in W.P. No.2137/1980). ‑‑‑OXV, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑ Consent decree passed on the basis of statement made by counsel of the petitioner‑‑Contention of the petitioner in Constitutional petition that when conveying the consent his counsel misconducted and made a false statement‑Held, petitioner might have remedy against his counsel but in so far as the petition for leave to appeal was concerned, the High Court acted rightly in declining to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑None had appeared to prosecute the petition‑‑leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A vendee in a pre‑emption matter has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition. Questions of fact including that of collusion have been raised in the petition. The suit was decreed against the petitioner on the basis of statement made by his counsel. It was a consent decree. It has been challenged in the petition for leave to appeal mainly on the ground that the counsel of the petitioner when conveying the consent misconducted and made a false statement. If that is so, the petitioner might have a remedy against the counsel but in so far as the present petition is concerned, the High Court acted rightly in declining to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. For this reason and also that none has appeared to prosecute this petition, it is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. M.BA./H‑65/S Petition dismissed.