1981 PLP 1066 (CLC)
GULAB SHAH‑Appellant Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1066 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, .J |
| Parties | GULAB SHAH‑Appellant Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (c) Practice and procedure‑, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1066 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Practice and procedure‑, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1066 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, .J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1066 (CLC) (GULAB SHAH‑Appellant Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Azimud‑Din for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ O. XLI, r. 21, O. 111, r. 4(5) & S. 107 and Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (III of 1965), S. 22‑Memo. of appearance‑Con tention that counsel appearing on behalf of duly appointed counsel having appeared in Court without authority to enter appearance, Court not absolved of its responsibility to serve appellant with notice of transfer of appeal‑Further contention being that such counsel could not appear without filing memo. of appearance as required by S. 22, hence his appearance no appearance in eye of law-Contentions, held, had no force.‑[Counsel and client]. ‑‑ O. III, r. 4 (5) and Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (III of 1965), S. 22‑ Vices of statutes‑Act does not lay down procedure to be followed by Courts in deciding suits and appeals‑Such pro cedure set out in C. P. C.‑Provisions of Act cannot override provisions contained in C. P. C.‑Counsel not fulfilling requirements of S. 22, held, might have to face charge of professional miscon duct‑Counsel's failure to file memo. of appearance, however, does not amount to error of procedure affecting validity of proceedings on basis of his attendance.‑[Interpretation of statutes]. Zafarul Haq v: Waris Iqbal and another P L D 1979 Lah. 793 rel. ‑‑ Contention that in absence of signatures of parties' counsel on order affecting arguments of parties' counsel having been heard, hearing of appeal cannot be said to be proper‑Held, had no force- Signatures of parties' counsel rarely obtained when final order announced immediately after conclusion of arguments.‑[Counsel and client].
Judgment & Decree
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
‑‑ O. XLI, r. 21, O. 111, r. 4(5) & S. 107 and Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (III of 1965), S. 22‑Memo. of appearance‑Con tention that counsel appearing on behalf of duly appointed counsel having appeared in Court without authority to enter appearance, Court not absolved of its responsibility to serve appellant with notice of transfer of appeal‑Further contention being that such counsel could not appear without filing memo. of appearance as required by S. 22, hence his appearance no appearance in eye of law-Contentions, held, had no force.‑[Counsel and client]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
‑‑ O. III, r. 4 (5) and Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (III of 1965), S. 22‑ Vices of statutes‑Act does not lay down procedure to be followed by Courts in deciding suits and appeals‑Such pro cedure set out in C. P. C.‑Provisions of Act cannot override provisions contained in C. P. C.‑Counsel not fulfilling requirements of S. 22, held, might have to face charge of professional miscon duct‑Counsel's failure to file memo. of appearance, however, does not amount to error of procedure affecting validity of proceedings on basis of his attendance.‑[Interpretation of statutes]. Zafarul Haq v: Waris Iqbal and another P L D 1979 Lah. 793 rel. (c) Practice and procedure‑
‑‑ Contention that in absence of signatures of parties' counsel on order affecting arguments of parties' counsel having been heard, hearing of appeal cannot be said to be proper‑Held, had no force- Signatures of parties' counsel rarely obtained when final order announced immediately after conclusion of arguments.‑[Counsel and client]. Ch. Azimud‑Din for Appellant.