1989 PLP 1776 (SCMR)
Mst. KHURSHID and another Petitioners Versus Mst. LATIF FATIMA and 8 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1776 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KHURSHID and another Petitioners Versus Mst. LATIF FATIMA and 8 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1776 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1776 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1776 (SCMR) (Mst. KHURSHID and another Petitioners Versus Mst. LATIF FATIMA and 8 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 22‑3‑1989, in Writ Petition No.527 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Order impugned before High Court had not been formally set aside‑‑Arguments in relation to such an order could not be entertained until a clear verdict of the High Court in that behalf was available‑‑Petition for (cave to appeal against such order was dismissed with observation that petitioner if so advised could seek clarification from the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the acceptance by the High Court, of a Writ Petition filed by respondents side. It had arisen out of orders passed regarding disposal of Evacuee property. The High Court in the operative Para 8 of the impugned judgment has set aside "the orders dated 24‑9‑1985 and 11‑8‑1985" as without lawful authority. It is true that the order dated 18‑11‑1978 which was also impugned before the High Court has not been formally set aside. The arguments of the learned counsel in relation thereto, therefore, cannot be entertained till a clear verdict of the High Court in that behalf is available. The petitioner may if so advised seek clarification or further hearing in the High Court on this question. The main argument of the learned counsel is based on alleged transfer in favour of Mst.Khurshid Begum petitioner in 1968‑‑before the repeal of the Settlement Laws. According to learned counsel this order was never set aside and that being so, even if the petitioner's claim on any other basis was not tenable or acceptable, her claim on the basis of the said order should have been accepted and her rights declared accordingly. This aspect of the case also does not seem to have been dealt with by the High Court.The alleged order dated 21st March. 1968 said to have been passed in favour of Mst. Khurshid Begum has not been set aside by the High Court, therefore, prima facie, no grievance can be made in that behalf against the impugned judgment of the High Court. Be that as it may, if so advised the petitioner can seek clarification from the High Court in this behalf also. With the foregoing observations this petition is disposed of. M.B.A./K‑109/S Petition disposed of.