1991 PLP 1332 (SCMR)
Mst. RAISHAM BIBI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) with
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1332 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RAISHAM BIBI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) with |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1332 (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 1332 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1332 (SCMR) (Mst. RAISHAM BIBI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) with). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1989.
- Jari Ullah Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 7-12-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 664-R of 1972).
Art. 185(3)
Case which was remanded by Appellate Court below to Trial Court about 17 years before was still pending adjudication
Supreme Court to avoid further prolonging, instead of granting leave to appeal considered that it would be more appropriate for Trial Court to decide case entrusted to it since long as early as possible
Petition disposed of with observation that matter should be decided in accordance with law within 3 months from date of receipt of order of Supreme Court in that respect.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Case which was remanded by Appellate Court below to Trial Court about 17 years before was still pending adjudication‑‑‑Supreme Court to avoid further prolonging, instead of granting leave to appeal considered that it would be more appropriate for Trial Court to decide case entrusted to it since long as early as possible‑‑‑Petition disposed of with observation that matter should be decided in accordance with law within 3 months from date of receipt of order of Supreme Court in that respect. Jari Ullah Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1989. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑In this case the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) exercising powers of the Settlement Commissioner (Land) by his order dated 13‑7‑1972 set aside the order dated 14‑4‑1972 passed by the Assistant Commissioner with powers of the Collector Lyallpur who had upheld the order dated 16‑9‑1967 passed by the A.C. 2nd Grade Lyallpur sanctioning mutation of inheritance of Mst. Karam Bibi in favour of Mst. Raisham Bibi (Petitioner herein) and remanded the case to the A.C. 2nd Grade Lyallpur for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Settlement Commissioner the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. This was dismissed and the said order of the High Court is now questioned in this Court by this petition for leave to appeal. This matter came up before this Court on 26‑5‑1986 when the prayer for interim relief with regard to the stay of proceedings pending before the Assistant Collector was refused by a learned Judge of this Court. Despite this order the matter has not yet been decided afresh although it was remanded to him very long ago by the learned Settlement Commissioner namely on 13‑7‑1972. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we, are of the opinion that instead of granting leave to appeal in this case and further prolonging the matter it would be more appropriate for the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Lyallpur to decide the case entrusted to him since long, as early as possible. As the matter has already been pending with him for more than 17 years he should decide the matter in accordance with law, within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. This petition, with these observations, stands disposed of. H.B.T./R‑140/S Order accordingly.