1991 PLP 1323 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1323 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1323 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1323 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1323 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1989.
- Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 14th January, 1989 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.42 of 1985).
Art.185(3)
Notwithstanding any technical defect or error pointed out by petitioners in the case leave was refused as it was likely to result into immense hardship.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 14th January, 1989 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.42 of 1985). ‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Notwithstanding any technical defect or error pointed out by petitioners in the case leave was refused as it was likely to result into immense hardship. Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondent's Civil Revision with the finding that it was no more possible for the resolution of the controversy between the parties to resort to arbitration and that the civil suit already filed shall continue. Earlier by order dated 22‑3‑1989 the petitioners' prayer for stay of the proceedings in the suit was refused by this Court. Learned counsel stated that the suit has already made some progress. He has also informed us that the suit was filed after nearly 17 years of protracted litigation on the questions relating to arbitration. In other words learned counsel admitted that if the impugned judgment is set aside and the parties are compelled to resort first to arbitration and thereafter in all probability the case would go again to the Civil Court, it will take if not more nearly an additional period of a decade. He has not denied that the Civil Court, would in the circumstances of this case, after the exclusion of the arbitration would be within its competence to adjudicate upon all the questions and decide the controversial issues between the parties. That being so, notwithstanding any technical defect or error having been pointed out by the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which is likely to result into immense hardship. The suit shall continue to its logical end. Leave to appeal thus is refused. H.B.T./P‑116/S Leave to appeal refused.