1999 PLP 2623 (SCMR)
11-A Egerton Road, Lahore — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR QURESHI and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2623 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | 11-A Egerton Road, Lahore — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR QURESHI and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2623 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2623 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2623 (SCMR) (11-A Egerton Road, Lahore — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR QURESHI and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmed Awais, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1998.
- "Malik M. Rasheed Awan, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Raza Hussain Shamsi, Advocate on behalf of Munawar Qureshi, respondent No. 1.
- 2. According to Mr. Ahmed Awais, learned Advocate Supreme Court, the then learned counsel for the petitioner did not state that even after the winding up of the petitioner-Board and the termination of services of all the employees, the instant list would automatically cease to remain current. The precise contention was that the question of .law resolved by the learned Judge in Chambers, while allowing writ petition of respondent No.5 Muhammad Munawar Qureshi will have greater repercussions on the cases of many other employees of the petitioner-Board and the impugned judgment having upheld the judgment dated 30-4-1997 of the learned Judge in Chamber, the petitioner-Board will suffer heavy losses at the instance of all those who would choose to rely upon the same, in terms of the impugned judgment in I.C.A. No.521 of 1997. We are afraid the plea being raised in support of this petition is of little help to the petitioner. It was the then learned counsel for the Board who made the concession recorded in the impugned judgment. It is not the case of the petitioner that their learned counsel transgressed the limits of the Power of Attorney while stating as above before the learned Division Bench of the High Court. Moreover, the impugned judgment is based upon concession in an individual case. The same being a judgment in persona the cause/s of the petitioner-Board in relation to any other litigation surfacing itself in future between other parties and the petitioner-Board will, it is not denied by the petitioner, be decided on its/their own merits.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 28-10-1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in I.C.A. No.521 of 1997, in W.P. No.9782 of 1997).
Judgment & Decree
Ch. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.
Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner/Punjab Board Transport Corporation has laid challenge to the . following order passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in I.C.A: No.521 of 1997 on 28-10-1997:-- "Malik M. Rasheed Awan, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Raza Hussain Shamsi, Advocate on behalf of Munawar Qureshi, respondent No. 1. "Learned counsel concedes that establishment of the appellant has since been wound up and service (s) of all employees have been terminated. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs. "
2. According to Mr. Ahmed Awais, learned Advocate Supreme Court, the then learned counsel for the petitioner did not state that even after the winding up of the petitioner-Board and the termination of services of all the employees, the instant list would automatically cease to remain current. The precise contention was that the question of .law resolved by the learned Judge in Chambers, while allowing writ petition of respondent No.5 Muhammad Munawar Qureshi will have greater repercussions on the cases of many other employees of the petitioner-Board and the impugned judgment having upheld the judgment dated 30-4-1997 of the learned Judge in Chamber, the petitioner-Board will suffer heavy losses at the instance of all those who would choose to rely upon the same, in terms of the impugned judgment in I.C.A. No.521 of 1997. We are afraid the plea being raised in support of this petition is of little help to the petitioner. It was the then learned counsel for the Board who made the concession recorded in the impugned judgment. It is not the case of the petitioner that their learned counsel transgressed the limits of the Power of Attorney while stating as above before the learned Division Bench of the High Court. Moreover, the impugned judgment is based upon concession in an individual case. The same being a judgment in persona the cause/s of the petitioner-Board in relation to any other litigation surfacing itself in future between other parties and the petitioner-Board will, it is not denied by the petitioner, be decided on its/their own merits.
3. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed as such. Order accordingly. Leave is refused. H.B.T./P-39/S Leave refused.