SCMR 1975

1975SCMR258 (PLP)

Syed AQIL HUSSAIN JAFRI-Petitioner Versus MA SOOD JILANI AND OTHERS-Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 313 of 1970, decided on 1lth April 1974.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1975SCMR258 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties Syed AQIL HUSSAIN JAFRI-Petitioner Versus MA SOOD JILANI AND OTHERS-Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975SCMR258 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975SCMR258 (PLP)?

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: 1975SCMR258 (PLP) (Syed AQIL HUSSAIN JAFRI-Petitioner Versus MA SOOD JILANI AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
  • Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : l1th April 1974.
  • Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
  • Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated the 25th of September 1970, in Settlement Revision No. 1 of 1974. -- Art. 185(3)-Petition for clarification of an order passed by Court-Unknown to Rules framed by Supreme Court-Order passed and signed-Court became functus officio-Under if wrongly interpreted by any Court or authority remedy lay in appeal or revision according to law.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Petition for clarification of an order passed by Court‑Unknown to Rules framed by Supreme CourtOrder passed and signed‑Court became functus officio‑Under if wrongly interpreted by any Court or authority remedy lay in appeal or revision according to law. Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : l1th April 1974. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This is a petition for clarification of our order dismissing with certain observations in Civil Petition No. 313 of 1970 for special leave to appeal. We had observed that the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) while hearing the matter on remand should not permit matters relating to the rights of the parties that came into existence since the 13th of July, 1960, to be canvassed in the case. Such a petition is unknown to the Rules framed by this Court. Besides this Court became functus officio after it had passed and signed the order. If any Court or authority proceeds to interpret our order wrongly the petitioner may have his remedy according to law by way of appeal or revision. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.