1991 PLP 1554 (CLC)
MURABBAT ALI ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus ABDUL JABBAR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1554 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MURABBAT ALI ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus ABDUL JABBAR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1554 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1554 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1554 (CLC) (MURABBAT ALI ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus ABDUL JABBAR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.35‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed with costs and costs were allowed to all respondents not to present petitioner alone‑‑‑There being five respondents including petitioner, amount of costs would be equally divided among respondents who contested Constitutional petition. Sardar Muhammad Anwar Ahmad Khan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Muhammad Anwar Ahmad Khan for Applicant. Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents. The applicant through this application has sought withdrawal of Rs.5,000. 2, The relevant facts are that one Mohabbat Ali filed a Constitutional petition whereby he assailed the order dated 1‑9‑1988 passed by respondent No.
5. The applicant was arrayed as respondent No.1 in this writ petition. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000 vide judgment dated 3‑10 1989. It is stated that the costs have been deposited and the applicant wants to withdraw the same. Notice of this application was issued to the Government and Rana Muhammad Arshad, Additional Advocate‑General has appeared.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the costs have been deposited and his client is entitled to withdraw the same.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate‑General submits that there were five respondents including the applicant, therefore, the amount has to be distributed equally between them. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides. The writ petition was dismissed with costs which were allowed to all the respondents and not the present applicant alone. Therefore, he alone cannot be allowed to withdraw the same. There is merit in the argument of the leaned Additional Advocate‑General that the amount has to be equally divided amongst A the respondents who contested the writ petition. In this view of the matter the applicant is allowed to withdraw Rs.1,000 out of the costs of Rs.5,000 deposited by the writ petitioner. The remaining amount will go to the State. H.B.T./M‑2666/L Order accordingly.