1989 PLP 1209 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1209 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1209 (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 1989 PLP 1209 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1209 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ihasanul Haq Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (absent).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 7‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision 906 of 1976). ‑‑‑O.XLI, R.19‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Restoration of revision petition‑‑Revision petition dismissed by High Court for non prosecution‑‑Repeated defaults‑‑High Court had dealt with question of restoration in the background of the repeated defaults in such a manner that no justification was available for grant of leave to appeal‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A civil revision filed by the petitioners' side (rival pre‑emptors) was dismissed by the High Court for non- prosecution. A restoration application was also dismissed in default. However, on another application the restoration order having been passed, the petitioners again committed default; and, the case ended once more for non‑prosecution. Again the petitioners submitted another restoration application which having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought. The learned Judge in the High Court has dealt with the question of restoration in the background of the repeated defaults in such a manner that we have not been able to find any justification for grant of leave to appeal. On merits also, the petitioners have a weak case. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused. M.B.A./K‑101/S Leave refused.