1989SCMR560 (PLP)
Messrs KHAN BROS. & CO.. — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR560 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid 1qbal, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs KHAN BROS. & CO.. — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR560 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR560 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid 1qbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR560 (PLP) (Messrs KHAN BROS. & CO.. — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 1988.
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the statement of Mr. SanaUllah, Advocate regarding his inability to appear in Court for the respondent/plaintiff on the day the suit was dismissed m default. He has tried to show that Mr. Sana Ullah made a false statement.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. No.1448 of 1983, dated 25-9-1983).
Art.185(3)--Petition for leave to appeal--Dismissal of defendant's .revision against restoration of plaintiff's suit--Order of dismissal impugned on the ground that counsel's statement regarding his inability to appear in Court for plaintiff on the relevant date, was a false statement--Counsel's statement who was cross examined did not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify any adverse comments by Supreme Court--Findings of Courts below did not suffer from any other error either--Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal by the High Court of its Civil Revision. Respondents' suit was dismissed for default and application for restoration was also dismissed for non‑prosecution. Later on, sufficient cause having been shown, the restoration application was restored and thereafter the suit was also restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the statement of Mr. SanaUllah, Advocate regarding his inability to appear in Court for the respondent/plaintiff on the day the suit was dismissed m default. He has tried to show that Mr. Sana Ullah made a false statement. After hearing the learned counsel we are unable to agree with him. The statement of Mr. Sana Ullah who was cross‑examined, does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to justify an adverse comments by this Court. The finding of the Courts below does not suffer from any other error, either. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. AA./K‑83/S Leave to appeal refused.