1988 PLP 112 (SCMR)
HAFIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAKILA BEGUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 112 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | HAFIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAKILA BEGUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 112 (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 1988 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 112 (SCMR) (HAFIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAKILA BEGUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mohammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-ors-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12-10-1983 of the Lahore High Court in C . M . 2907 of 1983 in W . P . No. 689-R of 1977) .
O. IX, R. 9--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) 199--Dismissal of writ petition for non-prosecution--Restoration of- Discretion of High Court--Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution- Order refusing its restoration challenged--Cogent reasons having been given for dismissal and discretionary order of High Court not suffering from any illegality, perversity or whimsicality, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order, dated 12-10-1983 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to restore a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution . Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the record perused. The High Court had given cogent reasons for dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution. It, therefore, did not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner when he asked for the restoration of his petition, earlier dismissed for non-prosecution. No ground is made out for interference with such a discretionary order of the High Court, especially when it does not suffer from any Illegality, perversity or whimsicality. Dismissed. M.I./H-25/S Petition dismissed.