1994 PLP 2030 (SCMR)
SHAH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2030 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan |
| Parties | SHAH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2030 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2030 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2030 (SCMR) (SHAH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Basit, Advocate (absent) instructed by Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Qazi Khalid Iqbal, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. .
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 26‑4‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Civil Revision No. 431 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Question raised in petition for leave to appeal stood already answered by Supreme Court, there was, thus, no force in the petition‑‑‑Request for adjournment of case at late stage, was not, in all the circumstances, in the interest of proper administration of justice‑‑ Leave was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the order dated 26‑4‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Civil Revision No. 431 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Question raised in petition for leave to appeal stood already answered by Supreme Court, there was, thus, no force in the petition‑‑‑Request for adjournment of case at late stage, was not, in all the circumstances, in the interest of proper administration of justice‑‑ Leave was refused in circumstances. A. Basit, Advocate (absent) instructed by Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Qazi Khalid Iqbal, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. . Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993. NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ. ‑‑‑The questions raised in this petition stand already answered by this Court. There is no force in this petition.
2. Request on behalf of Dr. A. Basit for adjournment at the time of hearing was made. But after carefully going through the record we find that as the questions arising in this case stand concluded by the pronouncements of this Court. The request for adjournment. of the case at this late stage is not, in all the circumstances, in the interest of proper administration of justice.
3. Dismissed. AA./S‑823/S Leave refused.