1985 PLP 1390 (SCMR)
Dr. MUHAMMAD YUSUF‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAKIA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1390 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. MUHAMMAD YUSUF‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAKIA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1390 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1390 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1390 (SCMR) (Dr. MUHAMMAD YUSUF‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAKIA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23‑8‑1984 in Review Application No. 34 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Grounds for grant of‑‑Order for payment of maintenance to wife impugned‑‑Revision before Collector being time‑barred, not entertained‑‑ Constitutional petition dismissed in limine‑‑Review being devoid of merits, failed‑‑Plea raised in Supreme Court for first time that revision was not barred by time‑‑Objection not having been taken before Collector and there being no adjudication on that point, not treated as pure question of law in circumstance‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1985. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a husband under order of maintenance, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 23‑8‑1984 on a review application filed by him. The Chairman, Arbitration Council ordered the payment of maintenance on 30‑3‑1983. The certificate was granted on 9‑4‑1983. The petitioner filed a revision before the Collector on 10‑5‑1983 which was not entertained by the Collector on the ground that it was barred by one month and ten days. A constitutional petition was thereafter filed in the High Court which was dismissed in limine on 23‑8‑1984. Thereafter a review petition was filed and the High Court rejected it with the following observations: "I had in my order, dated 23‑8‑1984, attended to the contentions raised at the bar and finding no merit therein had dismissed the petition in limine. Review jurisdiction is not a substitute for appellate jurisdiction. There is no error apparent on record justifying interference in review jurisdiction. I, therefore, find no merit in the review petition and dismiss it in limine, however clarifying that Mst. Zakiya Bibi is entitled to receive maintenance at the rate and for the period decided by the Arbitration Council till the divorce pronounced became effective under law." The learned counsel for the petitioner for the first time took up the ground that the revision before the Collector was pot in fact barred by time and that the Collector has taken an erroneous view of the law. This petition is shown to be barred by seventy‑six days and there is no application for the condonation of delay. We have noted the date of filing of the revision petition before the Collector as given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find that the objection taken before the Collector that the revision was time‑barred by one month and ten days was ever challenged. As we have not the benefit of adjudication on that point, we cannot treat this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as a pure question of law. So far as the impugned order passed by the learned Judge in review is concerned, on the legal plane there can be no grievance against it for grounds necessary for review were not made out. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.I. Leave refused.