1984 PLP 205 (SCMR)
ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 205 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 205 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 205 (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: 1984 PLP 205 (SCMR) (ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 21st November, 1983.
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 6-2-1983 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in Writ Petition No. 533 of 1981).
Art. 199-Writ petition-Maintainability-Petitioners having them selves abandoned their earlier writ petition by getting same converted into revision, held, could hardly justify filing of subsequent writ petition.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑2‑1983 dismissing their Writ Petition No. 533 of 1981 for the reason that a fresh writ petition cannot be allowed.
2. The writ petition had been filed to challenge an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 13‑5‑1981 dismissing the peti tioners' revision application. But that order had been earlier challenged by the petitioners by Writ Petition No. 296 of 1981, which at the request of the petitioners' counsel had been converted into and heard as revision but was dismissed on 17‑10‑1981 for the reason that a second revision did not lie. The petitioners did not challenge the decision but instead filed the aforesaid writ petition i.e., No. 533 of 1981, to challenge, once again, the order of the Additional District Judge.
3. The petitioners having themselves abandoned their earlier writ petition by getting the same converted into a revision, can hardly justify the filing of the subsequent writ petition. After hearing learned counsel, we do not find this to be a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.