1981SCMR925 (PLP)
ALIM-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1981SCMR925 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALIM-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981SCMR925 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981SCMR925 (PLP)?
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: 1981SCMR925 (PLP) (ALIM-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Azim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advoeate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 9th April, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 5-3-1980, I. C. A. No. 56/80). Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Interference by High Court at relevant stage likely to jeopardise adjudication of another competent Court, discretion exercised by High Court, held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity and case called for no interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CIJAUHAN, J
This is a petition against an order of the High Court dated 5-3-1980, passed in an Intra-Court Appeal No. 56 of 1980, confirming the order of` the learned Single Judge dated 11-2-1980, passed in Writ Petition bearing No. 1326/80 whereby the High Court refused to interfere or go into certain. alleged disqualifications in the election of the respondent as a member of Zila Council, Lahore, on the ground that a regular election petition has been filed by another contestant which covered the same point w x which was being asserted by the present petitioner in the High Court:,1F Learned counsel argued that his client as a tax-payer had filed a petition for quo warrant to and its adjudication could not have been shelved merely on the ground that some rival contestant of the respondent has challenged his election by an election petition as well. The contention has no merit because it is lit the discretion of the High Court whether in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, it would like to proceed in inquiry about a matter which is already competently sub judice before another forum, though at the instance. of another party. The discretion in the instant case exercised by the High Court sloes riot suffer from any legal infirmity because any interference by the High Court, at this stage was likely to jeopardize the adjudication of another competent Court. The view taken by the High Court on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case does not call for any interference by this Court.
2. The result is that as no case is made out for grant of leave the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.