1991 PLP 1829 (SCMR)
ALI AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus RAHIM BAKHSH through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1829 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALI AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus RAHIM BAKHSH through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1829 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1829 (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: 1991 PLP 1829 (SCMR) (ALI AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus RAHIM BAKHSH through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989.
- Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24-6-1986 in C.M.No.4216-C-85 in R.SA. No.612 of 1971).
Art.185(3)
Application for restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution was dismissed by Appellate Court below
Contention of petitioner that negligence of counsel should not have been allowed to operate as punishment to petitioners
Reasoning in judgment of Appellate Court below in support of refusal to restore matter was unexceptionable
Appeal sought to be restored otherwise merited dismissal on merits
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners application for restoration of an appeal which had earlier been dismissed for non‑prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the negligence of the counsel should not have been allowed to operate as punishment to his client; namely the petitioners. The matter is not that simple as assumed by the learned counsel. The reasoning in the impugned judgment in support of the refusal to restore the matter is unexceptionable. However, after hearing the learned counsel on the merits of the appeal in the High Court, which was sought to be restored, we are satisfied that it otherwise merited dismissal. That being so, leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./A‑582/S Leave refused.