1990 PLP 530 (SCMR)
SHAFT MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUZAFFAR‑UD‑DIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 530 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SHAFT MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUZAFFAR‑UD‑DIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 530 (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 1990 PLP 530 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 530 (SCMR) (SHAFT MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUZAFFAR‑UD‑DIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th June 1989.
- After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that the learned Judge of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition in limine, rightly held that no defect in the order of District Judge was pointed out to interfere in the constitutional jurisdiction and the order of the Additional District Judge was held to be proper and needed no interference. The learned counsel failed to show us any legal defect. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
1989 (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12‑5‑1986, passed in W.P. No.2002 of 1986). ‑‑‑OVIII, R.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑‑Defence, striking off‑‑‑Respondents, at about 11.30 made request for extension of date for filing of written statement when the Trial Court struck off their defence‑‑ Respondents submitted written statement alongwith application for re‑calling the said order at about 3‑00 p.m. on the same day which application was turned down‑‑‑District Judge in revision set aside the order, holding that filing of written statement was in due compliance of the order and order striking off defence till 4‑00 p.m., closing hours of Court was unwarranted‑‑‑Petitioner's writ petition against order of District Judge was dismissed‑‑‑Held, High Court while dismissing Constitutional petition had rightly held that no defect in the order of District Judge was pointed out to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction and order was proper and needed no interference‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th June 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 12‑5‑1986, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. The respondents were asked to file their written statement on 12‑2‑1985 by the Court. At about 11‑30 a.m. a request was made to extend the date for fling the written statement on the same day, when the Court ordered striking off the defence. Later on, at about 3‑00 p.m. the respondents' written statement alongwith an application requesting for the recalling the order of striking off the defence was submitted at the Court. The learned trial Judge vide his order dated 18‑5‑1985 turned down the said request. On revision petition before the Additional District Judge, the order of the trial Court was set aside, held that the fling of the written statement was in due compliance of the order of the Court and the striking off the defence order till 4.00 p.m. closing hours of the Court is unwarranted. A writ petition was filed against the order of the Additional District Judge who allowed the respondents to file the written statement on the date fixed by the Court for that purpose. The same was dismissed in limine. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have deliberately avoided to submit the written statement and the subsequent thought of riling the same was a delaying tactic and under such circumstances the Additional District Judge had no authority to give an opportunity to the respondents to file the written statement, and thus the order passed by him is totally without jurisdiction, mala fide and without authority. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that the learned Judge of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition in limine, rightly held that no defect in the order of District Judge was pointed out to interfere in the constitutional jurisdiction and the order of the Additional District Judge was held to be proper and needed no interference. The learned counsel failed to show us any legal defect. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. MA.K./S‑454/S Petition dismissed