2002 PLP 3126 (YLR)
CHAIRMAN, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL REHMAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3126 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sheikh Abdur Razzaq and Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | CHAIRMAN, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL REHMAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3126 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3126 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdur Razzaq and Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3126 (YLR) (CHAIRMAN, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL REHMAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Intro‑Court Appeal‑--Intra--Court Appeal had been directed against order passed in Constitutional petition‑‑‑High Court disposed of Constitutional petition directing respondent that he should appear before Corporation with a written application containing his contentions and Corporation would extend him benefit of any, Incentive Scheme‑‑‑Grievance of the Corporation in appeal was that respondent while filing Constitutional petition, had not disclosed that suit for, recovery of amount had already been filed against him by the Corporation‑‑ Corporation had submitted that it, would be satisfied if Intro‑Court appeal be disposed of with observation that order passed by High Court in Constitutional petition would not affect final adjudication of suit filed by the Corporation against the respondent‑‑‑Request of Corporation being genuine, Court directed that order passed in Constitutional petition would not have any bearing on final adjudication of suit filed by Corporation against respondent. Dr. Aslam Kaki's case PLD 2000 SC 225 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Dr. Aslam Kaki's case PLD 2000 SC 225 ref. M. Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Appellant. SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.‑‑‑Instant I.C.A. is directed against the order dated 2‑2‑2001 passed in Writ Petition No.506 of 2001 filed by writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 against the appellant as well as respondent No. 2.
2. A perusal of they impugned order reveals that while disposing the said writ petition, it was directed that the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 shall appear before the appellant with a written application containing his contentions and the appellant shall render him accounts, extend benefit of any incentive scheme and then to dispose of the matter keeping in view the dictum laid down in Dr. Aslam Khaki's Case (PLD 2000 SC 225).
3. The grievance of the appellant is that writ petitioner/respondent while filing the write petition did not disclose that a suit for the recovery, of amount had already been filed against him by the appellant. He further submits that he will be satisfied if the instant I.C.A., is disposed of with an observation that order dated 2‑2‑2001 shall not affect the fin adjudication of the suit filed by the appellant against the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1.
4. There is no doubt that writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 has not disclosed the factum of suit having been filed against him by the present appellant. Accordingly, the request of the appellant is genuine that order dated 2‑2‑2001 shall not affect the final adjudication of the said suit. Accordingly, we direct that order dated 2‑2‑2001 passed in writ petition aforementioned shall not have any, bearing .on the final adjudication of the suit filed by the appellant against the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1.
5. With this observation, the instant I.C.A. stands disposed of. H. B.T./C-175/L Order accordingly.