1983SCMR 713 (PLP)
DAULAT ALI-Petitioner Versus Mst. BARGUZIDA MUNTIZAR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983SCMR 713 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DAULAT ALI-Petitioner Versus Mst. BARGUZIDA MUNTIZAR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983SCMR 713 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983SCMR 713 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983SCMR 713 (PLP) (DAULAT ALI-Petitioner Versus Mst. BARGUZIDA MUNTIZAR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslant Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1983.
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslant Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 24th February, 1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 53/11 of 1981). -- Arts. 185 (3) & 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10'& Sched.-Attempt to challenge in 1981 transfer order issued in 1960 and P. T. D. issued in 1967-Held, very belated-Refusal by High Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of petitioner -Held, not unjustified in circumstances of case. Mahboob-ur-Rehman v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1968 Lab. 1058; Ramzan Ali Premji Khoja v. Kassim Brqthers & Co. P L D 1957 Kar. 224 and Atta Muhammad v. Rehmat Ali P L D 1967 Lab. 372 cited but not examined.
Judgment & Decree
Mahboob‑ur‑Rehman v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1968 Lab. 1058; Ramzan Ali Premji Khoja v. Kassim Brqthers & Co. P L D 1957 Kar. 224 and Atta Muhammad v. Rehmat Ali P L D 1967 Lab. 372 cited but not examined. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslant Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1983. M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioner had challenged the transfer order dated 15th October, 1960 passed in favour of the predecessor‑in- interest of the respondents and the consequential P. T. D. issued on 11th May, 1.967, through Writ Petition No. 903/11 of 1979. The petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 5th March, 1960. An application was moved for its restoration but the learned Judge not satisfied with the explanation offered directed the petitioner's counsel on 6th July, 1980 to furnish affidavit as to what had prevented him from appearing in the case. The affidavit was not furnished until 30th September, 1980, with the result that the application was dismiss ed. A fresh application for restoration moved after about a month was dismissed on 26th November, 1980. The petitioner, there upon, moved Writ Petition No. 53/11 of 1981 but the same, too, was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 24th February, 1982 holding that the subsequent wait petition was no more than (an attempt to have the previous order reviewed for. which there was no justification and that the impugned transfer order and the P. T. D. having issued long way back, the writ petition also suffered from ]aches. Aggrieved, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
2. It is contended that the earlier writ petition having been dis missed for non‑prosecution, the petitioner was, under Order IX, rule 4, C. P. C., entitled to move a fresh one which could not be called a review. Reliance for this was placed on Mahboob‑ur‑Rehman v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1968 Lab. 1085), Ramzan Ali Premji Khoja v. Kassim Brothers & Co. (P L D 1957 Kar. 224) and Atta Muhammad v. Rehmat Ali (P L D 1.967 Lab. 372). The contention may be correct, but the fact remains that the attempt to challenge in 1981 a transfer order issued as far back as 1960 and a P. T. D. issued in 1967 was very belated. The High Court was, therefore, not Unjustified in refusing‑to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.