2016 PLP 968 (YLR)
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, DHQ HOSPITAL GILGIT and 5 others — Petitioners Versus ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 968 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Alam, J |
| Parties | MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, DHQ HOSPITAL GILGIT and 5 others — Petitioners Versus ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 968 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 968 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Muhammad Alam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 968 (YLR) (MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, DHQ HOSPITAL GILGIT and 5 others — Petitioners Versus ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Additional Advocate General for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 5th October, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 114
Scope
Chief Court accepted revision petition against which review had been sought by the applicants
Review petition was result of misconception and misinterpretation of the order under review
Order under review contained specific directions to the Trial Court for affording chance to the defendant for filing written statement and then resuming the trial proceedings
Review petition was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
Through this petition, petitioners have sought review of order dated 10-08-2015 of this Court, passed in C. Rev. No.89/2014. The operative part of the said order of this court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 4. "In sequel of above discussion, I accept this petition, set aside impugned order, order sheet dated 01-07-2008 of the trial court and order dated 02-09-2013 of the trial court. Case remanded to the trial court with direction to afford the defendant No.6, a chance for filing written statement and then to resume the trial proceedings. No order as to costs. Parties to appear before the trial court on 17-10-15 for further directions. Copy of this order be sent to trial court. This file be consigned to record."
2. Brief facts of the case are that through order dated 02-09-2013, the learned trial court closed evidence of the petitioners and feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioners filed C.F.A. No.38/2013. Through order dated 12-08-2014 of the learned first appellate court, the said appeal was dismissed. On revision, this court passed the above reproduced order. Through this petition, petitioners have sought review of the said order and have prayed as under:- "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to review/correct the judgment/ order of this Hon'ble court dated 10-08-2015 passed in Civil Revision No.89/2014 by correcting the words "afford defendant No.6 a chance for filing written statement" appearing in the operative part/Para 4 line Nos.5 and 6 and inserting correct order in the words "afford defendants a chance for adducing and recording their evidence."
3. The review sought through this petition is clearly result of misconception and misinterpretation of the order under review. Through order under review, this court has accepted Revision Petition No.89/2014 of the petitioners. Moreover, the order under review contains the specific directions to the trial court for affording chance to defendant No.6 for filing written statement and then resuming the trial proceedings. So I do not feel any need of any review of the impugned order and this petition is not fit to be admitted for regular hearing.
4. Admission of petition for regular hearing refused. This file be consigned to record. ZC/132/GB Review dismissed.