1987 PLP 182 (SCMR)
KAMAL‑UD‑DIN and others Petitioners Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 182 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KAMAL‑UD‑DIN and others Petitioners Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 182 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 182 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 182 (SCMR) (KAMAL‑UD‑DIN and others Petitioners Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 29‑2‑1984 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.S.L.A. No.1377 of 1983). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R. 1‑‑Petitioner seeking review of Supreme Court order‑‑Point urged was not raised in Supreme Court when original petition was heard and impugned order passed, no ground, held, for review existed. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑
0. XLI, Rr. 30 & 31‑‑Judgment in appeal‑‑Effect of dismissal of appeal‑‑Where any order of Trial Court was not interfered with by appellate Court and appeal preferred against it was dismissed, said order of Trial Court was to be deemed as operative order.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑
0. XLI, Rr. 30 & 31‑‑Judgment in appeal‑‑Effect of dismissal of appeal‑‑Where any order of Trial Court was not interfered with by appellate Court and appeal preferred against it was dismissed, said order of Trial Court was to be deemed as operative order. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1986. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The Service Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondents vide order dated 17‑5‑1982. This order was challenged in this Court by the respondents herein through a petition for leave (C.P.S.L.A. No.593 of 1982). This petition was dismissed by this Court on 8‑12‑1982. The judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 17‑5‑1982 was, thereafter, given effect to but was implemented with effect from 8‑12‑1982, viz. the date of the dismissal of the leave petition by this Court. The petitioners again moved the Service Tribunal with the prayer that they were entitled to the benefit of its order dated 17th May, 1982 as from 1‑3‑1972, namely, the date when the National Pay Scales were introduced and not from 8‑12‑1982. This petition was dismissed by the Service Tribunal and the petition for leave (C.P.S.L.A. No.1377/83) directed against this order, before this Court, was also rejected on 29‑2‑1984. This is a petition, for review of the last‑mentioned order of this Court dated 29‑2‑1984. The submission of the petitioners is that if the appeal against the trial Court's judgment is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court upheld by the appellate Court in extenso, the judgment of the trial Court remains the operative judgment and relief must be accorded from the date of the trial Court's judgment. Hence the petitioners were entitled, at any rate, to relief as from 17th May, 1982, when the Service Tribunal passed its order and the action of the Provincial Government in allowing relief to them as from 8‑12‑1982, the date when this Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, is an error patent on the face of the record. The point now being agitated before us was not raised in this Court when Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1377 of 1983 was heard and the order, dated 29‑2‑1984 passed. Hence no ground for review exists. However, the submission on the legal plane that if any order of the trial Court is not interfered with by the appellate Court and the appeal preferred against it is dismissed the said order of the trial Court is to be deemed as the operative order, is correct. The petitioners can approach the Government and pray for implementation of the order of the Service Tribunal from 17th May, 1982, if so advised. With these observations this review petition is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.