1985 PLP 164 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AMIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 164 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---O. XXVI--Review by Supreme Court --Belated plea was totally irrelevant to review petition.--Review by Supreme Court. |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Shafiur Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 164 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 164 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---O. XXVI--Review by Supreme Court --Belated plea was totally irrelevant to review petition.--Review by Supreme Court. bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Shafiur Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 164 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AMIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate and M. Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th March, 1980. DORAB PATEL, J.-- The petition Ira had filed a petition for leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15-4-1976. But, as the petition for leave was time-barred by six days, and as we were not satisfied with the explanation even by the petitioners for this delay, we had dismissed the petition s time-barred by our order, dated 17-12-1979. Hence this review petition. In support of the petition Mr. Iftikhar stated that the petitioners were included Pardanashin ladies, whilst the other petitioners were very old and in poor health and that it was a case of great hardship. Taking first learned counsel's plea about hardship, it does not furnish any ground whatever for a review of our order. Next, as to the plea that the petitioners included Pardanashin ladies, we had referred to this circumstance in our order of 17-12-1979 and observed that this did not furnish any explanation of the delay in filing the petition for leave, because the petitioners included the three brothers of the Pardanashin ladies, and further the learned Judge of the High Court had announced the judgment in the presence of "the petitioners Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Sharif." In order to get round this observation, Mr. Iftikhar has filed certificates, according to which the three male petitioners are very old and in very poor health. We would only observe that the belated plea is totally irrelevant to the review petition, because in the application filed by the petitioners for condoning their delay in filing their petition for leave, the petitioners had not taken this allege plea of old age and illness. There is nay merit whatever in the petition which is merely an attempt to repeat the submissions which had been advanced before us on 17-12-1979. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M . Z . M . Petition dismissed.