1986 PLP 1817 (SCMR)
Haji NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1817 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | Haji NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1817 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1817 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1817 (SCMR) (Haji NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar A. Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 1986.
- Sardar A. Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- It is a four years old matter. No justification has been made out for not seeking the instructions well in time. These petitions accordingly` are dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if after establishing the contact with the clients the learned Advocate-on-Record feels that the subject-matter of these petitions is still alive, he may make an application for revival.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑11‑1982 passed in Criminal Revisions Nos. 86, 116 to 118 of 1982 respectively). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Adjournment‑‑Prayer for‑‑Dismissal for non -prosecution‑‑Petitioners' counsel asking for adjournment in order to seek instructions from his clients who had not contacted him since long‑‑Matter being four years old, no justification made out for not seeking instructions well in time‑‑Request refused and petitions dismissed for non‑prosecution with observation that counsel might apply for revival if subject‑matter of petitions was still alive.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought adjournment in these four cases of quashment so as to seek fresh instructions because according to him his clients have not contacted him for a long time. It is a four years old matter. No justification has been made out for not seeking the instructions well in time. These petitions accordingly` are dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if after establishing the contact with the clients the learned Advocate-on-Record feels that the subject-matter of these petitions is still alive, he may make an application for revival. With these observations, these petitions are disposed of. M.I Petitions dismissed