1975 PLP 251 (SCMR)
FAZAL MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 251 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAZAL MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 251 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 251 (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: 1975 PLP 251 (SCMR) (FAZAL MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Khan Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme court instructed by Maqboob Ahmad, Advocate-on- Record for Respondents Nos. 1-6.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 7 and 8.
- Date of hearing ;13th November 1974.
- Muhammad Hanif Khan Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme court instructed by Maqboob Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Respondents Nos. 1‑6.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated the 14th March 1974, in Review Application No. 65 of 1973 and order dated the 5th November 1973, in Writ Petition -R of 1965). -- Art. 185(3)-Point neither raised be are High Court nor stated in petition for leave to a appeal to have been so raised but not con sidered by High Court-Not permitted to teed b for a Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hanif Khan Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme court instructed by Maqboob Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Respondents Nos. 1‑
6. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 7 and
8. Date of hearing ;13th November 1974. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This petition is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to review his previous order allowing a writ petition It has been contended before us that the learned angle Judge has not considered certain documents favouring the petitioner's case. This point does not appear to have been raised before the learned Single Judge. It has not been stated in this petition that although this point was raised, it was not considered by the learned Judge. We cannot, therefore, permit the petitioner to raise the point before us for the first time. The next contention is that the learned Judge has misread certain documents. Only two cases of such misreading were placed before the learned Judge and they were rejected. The learned Judge quoted facts in support of This is not a fit case for interference The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed,