1995SCMR513 (PLP)
GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus (Mst.) ZAINAB BIBI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR513 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus (Mst.) ZAINAB BIBI‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR513 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR513 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR513 (PLP) (GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus (Mst.) ZAINAB BIBI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Amjad Hussain Syed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 12‑1‑1993 passed in RSA 740/1976). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R. 19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Restoration of appeal dismissed in default and hearing of appeal on merits ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Judgment in question, had considered all questions raised by petitioner with great care and caution‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby respondent's application under Order XLI, rule 19, C.P.C. was allowed and the appeal was ordered to be heard on merits.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent had been served with notice of appeal on 4‑3‑1987. However, on that date no hearing was held and the case was adjourned. The impugned order has considered this aspect of the case with great care and caution by referring to several authorities. We do not find any force in the petition, which is dismissed. AA./G‑481/S Petition dismissed.