1988 PLP 1966 (SCMR)
KHAIR DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1966 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | KHAIR DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1966 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1966 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1966 (SCMR) (KHAIR DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sh.Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st July 1988.
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sh.Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 13-2-1982 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Civil Revision No.455 of 1981). --S.115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art .185 (3)--Petitioner's plea that respondent's earlier application was rejected not entertained by High Court because certified copy of relevant order was not produced--Petitioner unable to satisfy that plea raised from his side could succeed without production of relevant document before the Court concerned--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his civil revision in canal management case. The petitioner having failed before the canal authorities regarding a change of outlet, filed a civil suit, which was dismissed. His appeal and civil revision having also been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel has contended that an earlier application filed from the respondent's side, was rejected. Subsequent application for the same purpose as such was barred by law. Same plea was raised before the High Court, which was repelled with the observation that no certified copy of the relevant order regarding the earlier rejection having been produced by the petitioner, his plea was not entertainable. The learned counsel after some arguments failed to satisfy u: that the plea raised from the petitioner's side could succeed without the production of relevant documents before the Court concerned. Thus, leave to appeal is refused. M.I./K‑73/S Petition dismissed.