1981 PLP 361 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 361 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 361 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 361 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 361 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115‑Revision, scope of‑Substantial question, having bearing on merits of suit, decided by judicial approach‑‑Such order amounts to a case decided as contemplated by S. 115‑Application for appointment of a Local Commissioner judicially determined by civil Court‑Held, a case decided for purpose of S. 115‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXVI, r. 9.
‑‑ Art. 199 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Writ jurisdic tion‑Order assailed before District Judge suffering from illegality --Such order set aside‑Even if District Judge erred in reaching conclu sion interference by High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction, held, not warranted.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
S. 115‑Revision, scope of‑Substantial question, having bearing on merits of suit, decided by judicial approach‑‑Such order amounts to a case decided as contemplated by S. 115‑Application for appointment of a Local Commissioner judicially determined by civil Court‑Held, a case decided for purpose of S. 115‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXVI, r. 9. Nawabzada Malik Habib U1lah Khan v. The Pak Cement Industries Limited and others 1969 S C M R 965 ; Umar Dad Khan and another v. Tila Muhammad Khan and 14 others P L D .1970 S C 288 and Fazal Muhammad v. Muhammad Usman P L D 1970 Lab. 560 ref. Bahadur Shah and 2 others v. Sharaf and 9 others P L D 1973 Lab. 513 ; M. J. Sheth & Co. v. Ramiza Bi and another A I R 1938 Mad. 646 ; Sm. Sarala Sundrf Devi and another v. Surgadra Narayan Roy and another 163 I C 449; Jaya Shanker Mills (Barsi) Ltd. v. Hazi Zakaria Hazi Ebrahim A I R 1962 Andh. Pra. 435 ; Akbar Ali Khan v. Harbert Francis A I R 1925 Pat. 125 ; S. R. M. M. Chettley Firm and another v. P. L. N. N. Narayana Chettley A I R 1921 Lower Burma 6 and Somasundaram Chettfar and another v. Manicka Vasaka Desika Gnana Sammanda Prandara Sannidi I L R 3l Mad. 60 fol. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑ Art. 199 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Writ jurisdic tion‑Order assailed before District Judge suffering from illegality --Such order set aside‑Even if District Judge erred in reaching conclu sion interference by High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction, held, not warranted. Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref. Ch. Moin‑ud‑Din Javed Buttar for Appellant.