1991 PLP 1280 (SCMR)
NAWAB — Petitioner Versus Mst. RABIA BIBI through Legal Heirs and 13 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1280 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah |
| Parties | NAWAB — Petitioner Versus Mst. RABIA BIBI through Legal Heirs and 13 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1280 (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 1280 (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 1280 (SCMR) (NAWAB — Petitioner Versus Mst. RABIA BIBI through Legal Heirs and 13 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th August, 1989.
- Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 23-5-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in C.M. No. 99 of 1988/BWP in Writ Petition No. 491 of 1987/BWP).
Arts. 185(3) & 199
Petitioner seeking to be implead as respondent in constitutional petition claimed that he was tenant in land in dispute which according to him was subject-matter of Land Reforms and as a result of such reforms he would ultimately get ownership of certain piece of that land-- High Court, on the contrary took view that main case was still being processed and petitioner not having suffered any grievance, was neither an aggrieved person nor a necessary party
Supreme Court, in view of circumstances and background of the case considered that it would be helpful to High Court if, when hearing main constitutional petition, petitioner would also be afforded opportunity of hearing.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the order dated 23‑5‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in C.M. No. 99 of 1988/BWP in Writ Petition No. 491 of 1987/BWP). ‑‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑‑Impleading of party‑‑‑Petitioner seeking to be implead as respondent in constitutional petition claimed that he was tenant in land in dispute which according to him was subject‑matter of Land Reforms and as a result of such reforms he would ultimately get ownership of certain piece of that land‑‑ High Court, on the contrary took view that main case was still being processed and petitioner not having suffered any grievance, was neither an aggrieved person nor a necessary party‑‑‑Supreme Court, in view of circumstances and background of the case considered that it would be helpful to High Court if, when hearing main constitutional petition, petitioner would also be afforded opportunity of hearing. Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner; against an interlocutory order of the High Court refusing to implead him as a respondent on his request, in a case arising out of Land Reforms. He claims to be a tenant on the land in question which, according to him, is the subject‑matter of the said Reforms. His further claim is that if the law, as he interprets it, is observed he will ultimately get the ownership of certain piece of land in this case as a result of the said Reforms. That being so, he sought to be impleaded as a respondent in the pending case. Learned Judges in the High Court took the view that the main case is still being processed and that the petitioner not having suffered any grievance he was neither an aggrieved person nor a necessary party. Be that as it may, we with respect are of the view that in the background and circumstances of the case and the allegations being made by the petitioner, it will be helpful to the High Court if, when hearing the main Writ Petition, the petitioner is also afforded an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make available to the High Court, at the time of the hearing of main petition, the assistance of a counsel. That done it is hoped and expected that the petitioner's counsel will be afforded opportunity of hearing. With these observations this petition is disposed of. H.B.T./N‑207/S Order accordingly.