1985 PLP 967 (SCMR)
WARIS ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 967 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan and |
| Parties | WARIS ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 967 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 967 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 967 (SCMR) (WARIS ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th November 1980.
- In support of the review petition, Shaikh Salah‑ud‑Din learned Advocate‑on‑Record submits that this Court has rot appreciated the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners that learned counsel appearing for him before the District Judge had no authority to make any concession on a point of law or abandon a plea in that behalf.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑ This is a petition for review of the judgment of this Court, dated 25‑5‑1980 by which special leave to appeal prayed for by the petitioners from the judgment of Lahore High Court was refused, and the petition made in this behalf was dismissed in limine. In support of the review petition, Shaikh Salah‑ud‑Din learned Advocate‑on‑Record submits that this Court has rot appreciated the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners that learned counsel appearing for him before the District Judge had no authority to make any concession on a point of law or abandon a plea in that behalf. The argument as advanced is not even available to the petitioners, for, it relates to plea of waiver which was put to trial under Issue No.3 framed in the suit and, therefore, it is essentially a plea relatable to factual position, and not a concession on a law point. Be that as it may, the argument now being advanced was not even raised on behalf of the petitioners before Lahore High Court from whose judgment special leave was sought for, and even otherwise this is a totally futile submission in view of the fact that not only the High Court but also this Court has held that even if the plea were to be advanced, and not abandoned, it has no force on merits. On this view of the case, the ground now being urged in support of this review petition does not advance petitioners' case in any manner. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. M. I. Petition dismissed.