1989SCMR 1718 (PLP)
KHAN SARDAR Petitioner Versus RAB NAWAZ Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR 1718 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Ullah and Usman Ali Shah,JJ |
| Parties | KHAN SARDAR Petitioner Versus RAB NAWAZ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR 1718 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR 1718 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Ullah and Usman Ali Shah,JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR 1718 (PLP) (KHAN SARDAR Petitioner Versus RAB NAWAZ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner:
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1989.
- The suit for possession of a house was brought through pre‑emption on payment of Rs.1,300 by Rab Nawaz plaintiff‑respondent which after contest by the defendant‑petitioner, was decreed in his favour by the Addl. Civil Judge, Lakki Marwat vide his order dated 18‑5‑1987. Appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge Bannu at Lakki, as not pressed, vide his judgment dated 7‑12‑1987. A revision was filed before the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan alongwith an affidavit of the Advocate for the defendant /petitioner denying having given any statement before the first appellate Court that he has not pressed the appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the revision petition in limine vide his judgment dated 16‑4‑1988. Hence this petition for leave before this Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan, passed in C.R.No. 14 of 1988 on 16‑4‑1988). ‑‑‑Art.185 (3)‑‑Petitioner's appeal was dismissed as not pressed‑‑Order challenged in revision denying the fact on which the appeal was dismissed and affidavit from counsel was also filed to such appeal‑‑High Court dismissed revision‑‑Petitioner failed to convince as to why Appellate Court would have recorded the statement on behalf of the party if it was not so stated before him‑ Order of Appellate Court was dated 9‑12‑1987, certified copies were delivered to petitioner on 16‑12‑1.987 and affidavit in support thereof before the revisional Court was Filed bearing date as 18‑1‑1988 which prima facie was properly held to be an afterthought and was not considered‑‑Petition, held, had no merits and dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawer High Court, dated 16‑4‑1988, whereby his civil revision against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge Lakki dated 7‑12‑1987, was dismissed. The suit for possession of a house was brought through pre‑emption on payment of Rs.1,300 by Rab Nawaz plaintiff‑respondent which after contest by the defendant‑petitioner, was decreed in his favour by the Addl. Civil Judge, Lakki Marwat vide his order dated 18‑5‑1987. Appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge Bannu at Lakki, as not pressed, vide his judgment dated 7‑12‑1987. A revision was filed before the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, D.I. Khan alongwith an affidavit of the Advocate for the defendant /petitioner denying having given any statement before the first appellate Court that he has not pressed the appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the revision petition in limine vide his judgment dated 16‑4‑1988. Hence this petition for leave before this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his petition, he failed to convince us as to why the Presiding Officer of the Court would have recorded the statement on behalf of the party if it was not so stated before him. It is also urged that the order of the appellate Court was the result of some misunderstanding. It may be pointed out that the order of the appellate Court is dated 9‑12‑1987 while the certified copies of the documents along with the order of the Addl. District Judge were delivered on application of the petitioner on 16‑12‑1987 and the affidavit in support therefore before the revisional Court was filed bearing the date as 18‑1‑1988 which prima facie was properly held to be an afterthought and was not considered. Thus under the circumstances of the case this petition has no merit which is hereby dismissed. Leave refused. M.A.K/K‑107/S Leave refused.