1999 PLP 1925 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD NASEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1925 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NASEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1925 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1925 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1925 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD NASEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalil Ahmad for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent No. 1. Nadeem Mahmood Mian for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Election petition‑‑ Interim order assailed in Constitutional petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Legislature in its own wisdom had not provided any appeal against such order‑‑‑Spirit of law could not be allowed to be defeated by entertaining Constitutional petitions against the interim orders because if that was done, it would be difficult to decide any petition‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Election petition‑‑ Interim order assailed in Constitutional petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Legislature in its own wisdom had not provided any appeal against such order‑‑‑Spirit of law could not be allowed to be defeated by entertaining Constitutional petitions against the interim orders because if that was done, it would be difficult to decide any petition‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Khalil Ahmad for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent No.
1. Nadeem Mahmood Mian for Respondent No.2. The writ petition is directed against order, dated 16th of December, 1998, whereby recounting has been ordered in the election petition filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner, who is the returned candidate. It is argued that the petitioner has no objection to the recount but that should be in respect of all the candidates including the petitioner.
2. On the other hand, the learned Addl. A.‑G. has pointed out that the petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.24348 of 1998 which was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 27th of November, 1998. It is added that this was directed against order, dated 20th of November. 1998. This way the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts and second petition cannot be maintained.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The Tribunal vide order, dated 9th of December, 1998, impugned in this petition, posted the matter for hearing the arguments on the objections raised, therefore, it is no order. This remains an interim order and the Legislature in its own wisdom has not provided an appeal against such order. The spirit of law cannot be allowed to be repeated by entertaining Constitutional petitions against the interim orders because if that is done, it would be difficult to decide any petition.
4. In this view of the matter this petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M‑1000/L Petition dismissed.