1990 PLP 474 (SCMR)
ABDUL SHAKOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NASIRA SHAHEEN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 474 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SHAKOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NASIRA SHAHEEN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 474 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 474 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 474 (SCMR) (ABDUL SHAKOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NASIRA SHAHEEN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Man7oor Eiahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27‑3‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Transfer Application No. 618/C of 1988). ‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Transfer of case from one Court to another by High Court, questioned in petition for leave to appeal‑‑ Question whether prayer for transfer of case should or should not have been granted was a matter within the discretion of the high Court‑‑‑Nothing was shown to indicate that such discretion had been arbitrarily or illegaly exercised‑‑‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Transfer of case from one Court to another by High Court, questioned in petition for leave to appeal‑‑ Question whether prayer for transfer of case should or should not have been granted was a matter within the discretion of the high Court‑‑‑Nothing was shown to indicate that such discretion had been arbitrarily or illegaly exercised‑‑‑‑‑Leave refused. Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Man7oor Eiahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989 NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑In this petition an order of the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court transferring a case pending in the Court of a Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, to the Court of the learned .fudge, Family Court, Jauharahad, District Khushah, is questioned. We have heard Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada at some length in support of this petition. The question whether the prayer of the respondents for transfer of the case should or should not have been granted was a matter which lay within the discretion of the High Court and nothing has been shown to us to indicate that this discretion has been arbitrarily or illegally exercised. A.A./A‑553/S Petition dismissed