1987 PLP 1339 (SCMR)
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1339 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1339 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1339 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1339 (SCMR) (Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- lzhar‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Naveed Shehryar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑6‑1986 in Civil Revision No.1339 of 1986). ‑‑‑O.XLI, Rr. 17 & 19‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Appeal‑‑Dismissal in default‑‑Restoration of‑‑Sufficient cause for‑ Concurrent findings‑‑Appeal dismissed in default‑‑Application for restoration of appeal dismissed for want of sufficient cause‑‑Finding affirmed by High Court‑‑Supreme Court refused to interfere with concurrent findings as view taken by the Courts did not suffer from any infirmity.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners appeal from the judgment and decree of a civil Court was dismissed in default on 9‑9‑1985. They filed an application on 30‑9‑1985 for the restoration of the appeal. One of them, namely, petitioner No. l, appeared in support of the application and alleged that she was present in Court when the appeal was adjourned to 9‑9‑1975. Being an old woman she was short of hearing. She took the impression that the appeal was to come up on 30‑9‑1985 instead of 9‑9‑1985. The learned Additional District Judge rejected this explanation and dismissed the application for restoration. The High Court affirmed the finding of the Additional District Judge. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There are concurrent findings of the high Court and the Additional District Judge that the petitioners have not been able to show sufficient cause for the restoration of the appeal. We are not persuaded that the view taken by them suffers from any infirmity. We would accordingly dismiss this petition. M.I./G‑18/S Petition dismissed