P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1199 (PLP)
PUNJAB PROVINCE and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed INTIZAR HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1199 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah, CJ. and Abdid Shakund Salam, J |
| Parties | PUNJAB PROVINCE and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed INTIZAR HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1199 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1199 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah, CJ. and Abdid Shakund Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1199 (PLP) (PUNJAB PROVINCE and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed INTIZAR HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th dune, 1990. ,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑2‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.275 of 1989). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Arbitration award admittedly signed by arbitrator was sought to be kept out of consideration simply because it was not the original typed written paper but the signatures were on the award which was carbon copy of the original which had been lost‑‑‑Appellate Court had examined in detail and rejected the petitioners' objection which was based on hypertechnical arguments‑‑‑No .plea was taken on the real merits or miscarriage of justice‑‑‑Appellate Court. thus did not commit any error which could be treated as substantial, so as to justify interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Messrs Combined Enterprises v. WAPDA Lahore PLD 1988 SC 39 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner/defendants' Civil Revision. It has arisen out of arbitration proceedings wherein the respondent's application relating to an award being made rule of the Court, was dismissed. The respondent's appeal was allowed but petitioners' Civil Revision challenging the appellate order was dismissed on the ground that it was not competent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has read the relevant parts from the judgment of this Court in the case of Messrs Combined Enterprises v. WAPDA Lahore P L D 1988 Supreme Court 39 which was relied upon by the High Court for the finding that the Civil Revision was not competent. This question might require further examination in a proper case as to whether the assumption by the High Court that Civil Revision was not competent in all such cases is correct. Because the possibility cannot be excluded that the said judgment of this Court is not to the effect assumed by the High Court in this case. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellate Court examined in detail and rejected the petitioners' objections which were based on hypertechnical arguments. For example, an award admittedly signed by the arbitrator was sought to be kept out of consideration simply because it was not the original typed written paper but the signatures were on the award which was carbon copy of the original which had been lost. If the carbon copy would not have been signed by the arbitrator the position might have been different. In any case the appellate Court did not commit any error which could be treated as substantial, so as to justify interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Similar question of use of stamp papers also was adequately dealt with in the appellate judgment. We might have paid more attention to these technical matters if there would have been any plea on the real merits or miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, while being unable to uphold the revisional order passed by the High Court in so far as the question of the competency of the revision in the High Court is concerned we, in the facts and circumstances of this case, do not find any justification to grant of leave to appeal. 1f the case is remanded to the High Court, the appellate judgment would be upheld. Thus, such an exercise is no more necessary when the points involved are hypertechnical. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.B.A./P‑152/S Leave refused.