2008 PLP 1027 (SCMR)
RASHEED HUSSAIN MALIK and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. HANIFA BAI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1027 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | RASHEED HUSSAIN MALIK and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. HANIFA BAI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1027 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1027 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1027 (SCMR) (RASHEED HUSSAIN MALIK and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. HANIFA BAI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz A. Munshi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Abdul Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.422-K of 2005).
- Rana M. Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1 (in Civil Petition No.422-K of 2005).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 to 5 (in Civil Petition No.422-K of 2005).
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.341-K of 2005).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition No.341-K of 2005)
- SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- Rana M. Shamim Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No.1 requests for adjournment on the ground that for the last 3 to 4 days he is not feeling well and could not prepare brief.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.181
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine question whether a revision petition dismissed in default could be restored; and in such eventuality whether the provision contained in Art.181 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable. Muhammad Yousuf and others v. Mst. Najma Bibi and others PLD 2006 SC 512 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.
Rana M. Shamim Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No.1 requests for adjournment on the ground that for the last 3 to 4 days he is not feeling well and could not prepare brief.
2. Mr. Aziz A. Munshi while not opposing the adjournment drew our attention to the case of Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Mst. Najma Bibi and others PLD 2006 SC 512 wherein a Bench of this Court on similar facts and circumstances granted leave to appeal to examine the question whether a revision petition dismissed in default can be restored and in suit eventuality whether the provisions contained in Article 181 of the Limitation Act would be applicable and requested that leave to appeal may also be granted in these petitions and the same may be ordered to be clubbed with appeals arising out of Civil Petitions Nos.83, 84 and 1499 of 2005.
3. Rana M. Shamim has no objection to the grant of leave.
4. Accordingly leave to appeal is granted in these petitions. The office is directed to club the appeals arising out of these petitions with the appeals which have arisen out of Civil Petitions Nos.83, 84 and 1499 of 2005 referred to above. C.M.A. No.41-K of 2005. Notice to respondents. Till then proceedings before the High Court shall remain suspended. H.B.T./R-5/SC Leave granted.