1991 PLP 1154 (SCMR)
Sh. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1154 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah, Naimuddin and |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | ORDER, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1154 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1154 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah, Naimuddin and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1154 (SCMR) (Sh. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. M. Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 1990.
- ‑‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Appellant and his counsel were called absent‑‑‑Report of process‑server and endorsement made thereon showed that parties had settled the dispute which might be the reason for non‑appearance of parties and their advocates, appeal was thus, dismissed for non‑prosecution.
- Kh. M. Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Appellant and his Advocate are called absent. From the report of the process‑Server and the endorsement made thereon it appears that the parties have settled the dispute. This might be the reason for non‑appearance of the appellant and their Advocates. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal for non -prosecution.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185
Appellant and his counsel were called absent
Report of process-server and endorsement made thereon showed that parties had settled the dispute which might be the reason for non-appearance of parties and their advocates, appeal was thus, dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.179 of 1990 in Civil Appeal No.201 of 1990, decided on 16th June, 1990. ‑‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Appellant and his counsel were called absent‑‑‑Report of process‑server and endorsement made thereon showed that parties had settled the dispute which might be the reason for non‑appearance of parties and their advocates, appeal was thus, dismissed for non‑prosecution. Kh. M. Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th June, 1990. Appellant and his Advocate are called absent. From the report of the process‑Server and the endorsement made thereon it appears that the parties have settled the dispute. This might be the reason for non‑appearance of the appellant and their Advocates. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal for non -prosecution. H.B.T./M‑1413/S Appeal dismissed.