1980 PLP 573 (SCMR)
AMANULLAH-Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 573 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMANULLAH-Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 573 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 573 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 573 (SCMR) (AMANULLAH-Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner,
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th February, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXIII, r. 3 read with S. 151--Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed as withdrawn on prayer of both parties on their arriving at a settlement--Party resiling from settlement may have other legal remedy open yet recall of consent order, held, not justified.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 13th February, 1980. ANWARLUL HAQ, C. J.‑This miscellaneous application seeks a re hearing of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 945 of 1976, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on the 26th of June, 1979, with the following order : "The counsel for the parties present along with their clients, state that the parties have arrived at a settlement and they do not want to prosecute this case any further. Thus pray for its withdrawal." It is submitted that the opposite‑party has resiled from the settle ment, which bad led to the withdrawal of this petition, and, therefore, It is necessary that the case be re‑heard on merits. The application is clearly misconceived, as the petition for leave to, appeal was dismissed on the prayer of the petitioner and in the presence of both the parties. If the opposite‑party has now resiled from the settlement previously arrived at, the petitioner may have other legal remedy open to him, but this circumstance would not justify a recall of the consent order made by this Court on the 26th of June, 1979. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.