1994 PLP 995 (MLD)

Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.628 of 1970 against acquisition proceedings in respect of disputed property and the same was dismissed by order, dated 18-3-1980/5-4-1980 of this Court.

2. Thereafter petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 2186 of 1981 through her Advocate that writ petition was still awaiting decision and the same may be disposed of in accordance with law. It was, however, stated in para. 5 of the said application that "the petitioner consequently procured a certified copy of the order and filed a petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is still pending".

3. The aforementioned C.M. was taken up on 7-7-1981 and office was directed to submit a report as to when the judgment of the learned Bench was received in the High Court and an order was passed by this Court on 6-10-1981 that "according to the office report the judgment in this case was received on 25th August, 1980. As it is after the learned Judge had relinquished his office here the case shall be deemed to be awaiting decision in this Court and, therefore, may be fixed by the office for hearing."

4. In view of para. 5 of the aforesaid C.M., petitioner was directed to state if any appeal was filed against the dismissal of writ petition and finally copy of order dated 6-12-1982 passed in C.P.S.LA. No.196-81 was produced which is hereunder: "Mr. Gulzar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner prays for the withdrawal of the petition. The prayer is allowed. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn accordingly."

5. The main plea of learned counsel for petitioner is that file was received in the office on 25-8-1980 after the learned Judge had relinquished his office and, therefore, the case shall be deemed to be awaiting decision in this Court. I have seen the judgment dismissing writ petition and it was duly signed and date of hearing was 18-3-1980 and 5-4-1980. Admittedly, petitioner obtained a copy of this order and filed aforementioned appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was withdrawn. If petitioner was of the view that petition was awaiting decision, copy of the order could not have been obtained by her for filing appeal. This fact alone is sufficient for rejecting this C.M. of petitioner that writ petition was awaiting decision. Learned counsel for respondents relied upon 1989 SCMR 1332 The Pakistan Shipping Corporation and another v. Rustam Cowasjee and others and PLD 1991 Lah. 427 Sh. Abdul Haq and Sons Ltd. v. Punjab Industrial Development Board to contend that a similar contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner has already been dealt with and rejected and, therefore, aforementioned C.M. merits rejection.

6. I have gone through the law laid down in precedent case (i) where it has been held that "it appears ex facie that the written judgment was signed by the learned Chief Justice in the capacity of and at the time when he held the office of the Chief Justice and on what date the office received the file or some ministerial functionary attended to it cannot upset such a content and effect of the judicial record. The receipt of the record in the office, the attention paid to it by the ministerial functionaries, has no bearing on the subject." A similar proposition was canvassed in the second precedent case and the same was repelled.. For the law laid down as aforementioned, there is no merit in this C.M. which is rejected. AA./S-420/L Application dismissed.