1968 P Cr (PLP)
Choudhary FEROZE DIN‑Petitioner Versus (1) M. JAVID, ADVOCATE, AND
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman, J |
| Parties | Choudhary FEROZE DIN‑Petitioner Versus (1) M. JAVID, ADVOCATE, AND |
| Primary Law | Review‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Review‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (Choudhary FEROZE DIN‑Petitioner Versus (1) M. JAVID, ADVOCATE, AND). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- (1) M. JAVID, ADVOCATE, AND
- (1) Choudhary ABDUL RAZAK, ADVOCATE,
- (2) M. JAVID, ADVOCATE, AND
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Petition for leave to appeal dismissed with advice to petitioner that his remedy was to approach competent appellate Court against order of trial Court and not Supreme Court‑Petition seeking review of that order saying nothing which could justify its re‑opening‑Petition dismissed‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑Two petitions for special leave to appeal from an order passed by the High Court were filed in this Court by Choudhary Feroze Din, the petitioner, and they were dis missed by order dated the 7th October 1966. A petition seeking review of that order was also dismissed by this Court on the 10th May 1967. This is another petition for review of the original order dismissing his petitions for special leave to appeal. We have heard the petitioner in person. Apparently he has nothing to say against the order dated the 10th May 1967, in which it was pointed out that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by any action on the part of the trial Magistrate, or the Civil Judge, who had dealt with his Civil Suit, his obvious remedy was to approach the competent appellate. Court, and not this Court. The petitioner has said nothing which could justify the re‑opening of that order. The petitions are dismissed.