1983 PLP 412 (SCMR)
Mst. INAYAT BEGUM-Petitioner Versus Mst. HAYAT BIBI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)
| Citation | 1983 PLP 412 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. INAYAT BEGUM-Petitioner Versus Mst. HAYAT BIBI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 412 (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 1983 PLP 412 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 412 (SCMR) (Mst. INAYAT BEGUM-Petitioner Versus Mst. HAYAT BIBI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Haji Ghias Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st April, 1982.
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Haji Ghias Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 3-11-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore' in R. S. A. No. 263 of 1976).
O. XXIII, rr. 1 & 2 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Suit, withdrawal of-Suit dismissed as withdrawn- Whether such withdrawal can be withdrawn-Compensation for with drawal-District Judge failing to notice in application, averment to effect that compensation has been received-High Court also not dealing with this issue at all-Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑It is, inter alia, submitted that Mst. Hayat Bibi (respondent No. 1 herein) had applied for withdrawal of her suit which was, accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the. Administrative Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, on 31‑10‑1973 and that this withdrawal could not subsequently, be withdrawn. It is further submitted in this connection, that the decision of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 24‑2‑1965 holding that the withdrawal was unauthorised, was based on an erroneous assumption of fact while the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura bad not set aside this decision on the assumption that Mst. Hayat Bibi could not have agreed to withdraw the suit without being properly compensated. However, he failed to notice that in the application for withdrawal there was an averment to the effect that she had received compensation. As for the High Court it had not dealt with this issue at all although, according to counsel, this matter was pressed. This point inter alia requires further consideration. Leave is accordingly granted. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,
000. The order of status quo passed on 5‑12‑1981 will continue during the pendency of the appeal. However, it is clarified that the proceedings regarding possession pending before the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura are not stayed and can continue. Leave granted.