1985 PLP 116 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 116 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 116 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 116 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 116 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1984.
- ---Art.l85 (3)--Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14--Remand order by High Court--Order of High Court impugned in petition for leave to appeal only a remand order which appeared to be a fair order hardly requiring any interference--No interim order granted by Supreme Court to stay operation of such remand order and Advocate-on-Record of petitioner not aware as to what was outcome of remand order of High Court--Petitioner having not contacted Advocate-on-Record for last several years and not given any instructions in that behalf--Petition appearing only to be of academic interest thus dismissed.
- The order of the High Court impugned by this petition is only an order of remand, which appears to be a fair order, and hardly requires any interference. Moreover, it is to be observed that no interim order was granted by this Court to stay the operation of the above order of remand and the learned Advocate-on-Record is not aware as to what the outcome of the order of the High Court has been because the petitioner has not contacted him during the last several years and not given any instructions to him, in this behalf. This petition now, therefore, appears only to be of academic interest.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12th November, 1976 of the Lahore High Court in F.A.O.No.138/76)
Art.l85 (3)--Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14--Remand order by High Court--Order of High Court impugned in petition for leave to appeal only a remand order which appeared to be a fair order hardly requiring any interference--No interim order granted by Supreme Court to stay operation of such remand order and Advocate-on-Record of petitioner not aware as to what was outcome of remand order of High Court--Petitioner having not contacted Advocate-on-Record for last several years and not given any instructions in that behalf--Petition appearing only to be of academic interest thus dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Art.l85 (3)--Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14--Remand order by High Court--Order of High Court impugned in petition for leave to appeal only a remand order which appeared to be a fair order hardly requiring any interference--No interim order granted by Supreme Court to stay operation of such remand order and Advocate-on-Record of petitioner not aware as to what was outcome of remand order of High Court--Petitioner having not contacted Advocate-on-Record for last several years and not given any instructions in that behalf--Petition appearing only to be of academic interest thus dismissed. A. Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th June, 1984. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-11-1976 passed- by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent herein and remanded the case to the Court below to decide the application submitted before it under section 14 of the Arbitration Act after giving the said respondent (who was the appellant before him) an opportunity to produce evidence, if any, in support of its objections and also a similar opportunity o: rebuttal to the petitioner herein (who was the respondent before him). The order of the High Court impugned by this petition is only an order of remand, which appears to be a fair order, and hardly requires any interference. Moreover, it is to be observed that no interim order was granted by this Court to stay the operation of the above order of remand and the learned Advocate-on-Record is not aware as to what the outcome of the order of the High Court has been because the petitioner has not contacted him during the last several years and not given any instructions to him, in this behalf. This petition now, therefore, appears only to be of academic interest. This is not a fit case for interference M . Z . M . Petition dismissed