1989 PLP 514 (SCMR)
SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ABDUL QADEER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 514 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ABDUL QADEER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 514 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 514 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 514 (SCMR) (SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ABDUL QADEER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th October, 1988.
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- 2. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in affirming the finding that the Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner suffered from laches, this Court has omitted to take note of the order granting leave to appeal in which it was mentioned that the petitioner had been following his remedy till 20‑6‑1974 and further that in fact he had been representing to the various authorities in the matter. Further it is contended that it was not in fact a claim for reduction of the price but for correct assessment of the price. According to the learned counsel, if these two things had been taken into consideration the conclusions drawn would have been different.
Headnotes / Summary
(For review of the judgment dated 17-4-1988 passed in Civil Appeal No.167 of 1982).
O.XXVI, R.6--Review before Supreme Court--Determinative findings having been recorded on the two points urged by petitioner after considering all the facts of the case, no case for review of judgment was made out--Review petition being devoid of merits was dismissed as not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks review of our judgment dated 17‑4‑1988 dismissing his appeal.
2. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in affirming the finding that the Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner suffered from laches, this Court has omitted to take note of the order granting leave to appeal in which it was mentioned that the petitioner had been following his remedy till 20‑6‑1974 and further that in fact he had been representing to the various authorities in the matter. Further it is contended that it was not in fact a claim for reduction of the price but for correct assessment of the price. According to the learned counsel, if these two things had been taken into consideration the conclusions drawn would have been different.
3. After examining all the steps that the petitioner claims to have taken after 2‑12‑1971 and before filing the Revision against the transfer of the property on 13‑8‑1974, the Court held that "the conduct of the appellant after 2‑12‑1971 is incapable of any satisfactory explanation, going back to the same authorities with no additional material but the same facts, was a futile exercise and could not end in result except what followed". As regards the second ground this Court observed as follows:‑‑ "The record on which the appellant relics itself shows that the rent then realized was Rs.360 per month and this part of the entry had not been questioned even by the appellant. What he is questioning is the decision of the Excise and Taxation Officer for the purposes of urban property tax the valuation of the property." As determinative findings had been recorded on both the points after considering all the facts of the case, no case for review of the judgment is made out. The petition is dismissed. AA./S‑221/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Review petition dismissed.