1986 PLP 127 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 127 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑O. 111, r. 4‑‑Statement made by counsel‑‑Value‑‑Statement made by counsel of a party while appearing in connection with an interlocutory matter, where under entire suit was liable to be disposed of, held, was binding on that party.‑‑Counsel and client. |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 127 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 127 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑O. 111, r. 4‑‑Statement made by counsel‑‑Value‑‑Statement made by counsel of a party while appearing in connection with an interlocutory matter, where under entire suit was liable to be disposed of, held, was binding on that party.‑‑Counsel and client. bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 127 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Maqbool Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court and Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- A.R. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The question raised in this petition is whether the statement, made by the counsel of a party while appearing in connection with an interlocutory matter, where under the entire suit was liable to be disposed of, could bind the said party? The High Court has, after carefully examining all the circumstances of this case and relying on two reported judgments of the Lahore High Court, held that the counsel could competently have made the statement in question and the party represented by the said counsel will be bound by his statement. The above view is disputed before us through this petition for leave to appeal. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record we see no reason to differ with the view expressed by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of this case. This petition is dismissed. M.Y.H. Leave refused.