1990CLC735 (PLP)
AZIMULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990CLC735 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Aslam Mian, JJ |
| Parties | AZIMULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 19118)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990CLC735 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 19118)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990CLC735 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Aslam Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990CLC735 (PLP) (AZIMULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Mohammad Sabir for Petitioner.
- Ch. Inayatullah Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 114 & 0.111, R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199‑‑‑Review petition‑‑‑Ex parte order‑‑‑Petitioner praying for withdrawal of ex parte order and for hearing constitutional petition on ground that he was not heard‑‑ Statement of facts showing that in the beginning, petitioner who was respondent in writ petition had engaged a counsel who had filed written statement but subsequently petitioner approached another advocate to appear on his behalf who was although not paid fee yet having been approached, had appeared in case in order to safeguard interest of petitioner and his presence was marked in the judgment sheet‑‑‑I‑, plea of applicant that he was not heard was without any basis‑‑‑Review petition thus was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Mohammad Sabir for Petitioner. Ch. Inayatullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th May, 1983. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J‑‑This is an application for review of an order dated 9‑2‑1980 passed in Writ Petition No.1041/R‑
73. It is stated that the applicant was a respondent in the writ petition and had engaged Mr. Khaliq Ahmad Ansari, as his advocate in 1975 who had filed written statement. His name did not appear in the cause list and Mr. Ansari did not appear, therefore, the order being ex parte the same should be withdrawn and the writ petition heard.
2. From the order it appears that on behalf of the applicant respondent Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate had appeared. 1t is stated by the applicant that he had come to engage Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate but had not paid him the fee. The learned counsel for the applicant states that Ch. Muhammad Farooq was not the counsel for the applicant.
3. From the statement of the facts it would appear that no doubt in the beginning the respondent had engaged Mr. Ansari, Advocate who had filed the A written statement but subsequently the applicant approached Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate to appear on his behalf. Though Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate was not paid the fee as the applicant says but nonetheless he having been approached in order to safeguard the interest of the applicant had appeared in the case. His presence is marked on the judgment sheet, therefore, the plea of the applicant that he was not heard is without any basis. The application for review is therefore, dismissed with costs. M.Y.H./A‑731/L Petition dismissed.