1969 PLP 916 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AYUB AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 916 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 916 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 916 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 916 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AYUB AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Almas Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 25th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 20th June 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 656 of 1966).
Art. 98‑Successive petitions Earlier petition filed by mother during minority of petitioner dismis sed‑Mother not proved guilty of any negligence‑Second petition by son on his reaching majority, held, rightly not entertained by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 98‑Successive petitions Earlier petition filed by mother during minority of petitioner dismis sed‑Mother not proved guilty of any negligence‑Second petition by son on his reaching majority, held, rightly not entertained by High Court. S. M. Almas Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th October 1967. S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑A writ petition filed by Muhammad Ayab and others in the High Court, was dismissed on the ground that an earlier writ petition filed on their behalf by their mother, during the minority of the petitioners, had been dismissed on the merits by the High Court. Muhammad Ayub out of the petitioners has now become a major an] moved fresh writ petition on the ground that his mother had not properly conducted the proceedings on the or vinous writ petition. This contention was not accepted by the High Court as correct. On the contrary, it was found that Vie guardian of the minors was not proved to be guilty of any negligence in the matter. She bad engaged a Counsel and had pursued the petition right up to an appeal to the Letters Patent Bench. Even a review petition had been filed in the High Court which had failed. These circumstances justified the view taken by the High Court in the present case and Mr. Almas Ali, on behalf of the petitioners, was unable to suggest any sound reason for differing from that view. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.