1989 PLP 1129 (SCMR)
JALAL Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1129 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zallah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | JALAL Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1129 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1129 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zallah 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 1129 (SCMR) (JALAL Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑7‑1984 in C.M. No.2852/C of 1984 in R.S‑A. No.265 of 1979). West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑ ‑‑S.2‑A (as inserted by West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment), Ordinance, (XIII of 1983)]‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Contention that High Court was not justified in declaring that the decree by First Appellate Court had become void on account of addition of S.2‑A in the Act, 1962 and such question should have been left for the executing Court to decide‑‑Held, High Court was perfectly justified in recording the effect of a law, which was enacted during the pendency of appeal before it‑‑Leave to appeal against order of the High Court was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sough by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration against the order by the High Court. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2852/C/1984 in regular Second Appeal No.265 of 1979, filed by respondents side which had earlier been disposed of with the following operative order‑ "It was by the said Ordinance XIII of 1983 , West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 that section 2‑A was inserted m the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962. By operation of clause (b) of section 2‑A the judgment and decree impugned herein have become void, in executable and of no legal effect, and under clause (c) thereof the appeal before me has abated. These facts are hereby recorded." The order passed by the High Court on the Civil Miscellaneous Application is reproduced below‑ "Before passing judgment dated 9th May, 1984 I had heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who was respondent in appeal, decided by the aforesaid judgment, raised only one objection, namely, that there was no documentary evidence on the record to show that Bashir had inherited the disputed land under custom before 15th March, 1948 and the same was repelled by me on the basis of the record. It was not urged by him that the question of excitability of the decree could not be decided by this Court nor it was pleaded by him that Karam Elahi was a non‑Muslim. The assertions made in this behalf are an afterthought and do not call for a review of the said judgment. The C.M. is, accordingly, dismissed in limine." Learned counsel has contended that the High Court was not justified in declaring that the decree in petitioner's favour passed by the First Appellate Court had become void on account of the promulgation of 1983 Punjab Ordinance and further that this question should have been left for the executing Court to decide. We do not agree with him. The learned Judge in the High Court was perfectly justified in recording the fact of a law which was enacted during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. That being so, no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. M.BA./J‑47/S Petition dismissed