1984 PLP 165 (SCMR)
PARTRADERIET FOER M. T. SONJA & CO. AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD AND 16 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 165 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PARTRADERIET FOER M. T. SONJA & CO. AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD AND 16 OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 165 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 165 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 165 (SCMR) (PARTRADERIET FOER M. T. SONJA & CO. AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD AND 16 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 185(3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 151-Petition for leave to appeal-Counsel for petitioner, after Supreme Court had heard arguments of both sides submitting in writing relief that petitioner sought-Such application agreed to by respondents and signed by Advocates-on-Record of both parties-Supreme Court converted petition into appeal, accepted same and amended relevant paragraph of impugned order of High Court in light of agreement reached between concerned parties with observation that amended paragraph shall be read in substitution of relevant para of impugned order of High Court.
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court with Ismail Tajani, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, G. H. Malik, Advocate Supreme Court, Sharaf Faridi, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record and Kamm Azam, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 15th November, 1983.
- ‑‑--Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 151‑Petition for leave to appeal‑Counsel for petitioner, after Supreme Court had heard arguments of both sides submitting in writing relief that petitioner sought‑Such application agreed to by respondents and signed by Advocates‑on‑Record of both parties‑Supreme Court converted petition into appeal, accepted same and amended relevant paragraph of impugned order of High Court in light of agreement reached between concerned parties with observation that amended paragraph shall be read in substitution of relevant para of impugned order of High Court.
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court with Ismail Tajani, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, G. H. Malik, Advocate Supreme Court, Sharaf Faridi, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record and Kamm Azam, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑After we had heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length the counsel for the petitioners submitted, in writing the relief that the petitioners sought. This was agreed to by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff in the suit). The learned A. O. Rs of the petitioners as well as respondent No. 1 signed the same. We, therefore convert this petition into appeal, accept it and amend paragraph 6 of the) impugned order in the light of the aforementioned agreement reached between the concerned parties. The said paragraph 6 shall be read in substitution of para. 6 of the impugned order of the High Court, dated 26‑10‑1983. It shall now read as follows
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑After we had heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length the counsel for the petitioners submitted, in writing the relief that the petitioners sought. This was agreed to by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff in the suit). The learned A. O. Rs of the petitioners as well as respondent No. 1 signed the same. We, therefore convert this petition into appeal, accept it and amend paragraph 6 of the) impugned order in the light of the aforementioned agreement reached between the concerned parties. The said paragraph 6 shall be read in substitution of para. 6 of the impugned order of the High Court, dated 26‑10‑1983. It shall now read as follows "
6. The distribution of the amount shall abide by the final decision in the suit except that the petitioners shall be entitled to be paid forthwith and in priority to all other claims, such amount as may be adjudicated to be due to them by the learned trial Judge by the order to be made in the their application under section 151, C. P. C. (C. M. A. 3936/83) and after adjudication of objections, if any, that may be filed to such application. Adjudication shall take place as early as possible." There shall be no order as to costs. M.Z.M Order accordingly.