1989SCMR 1513 (PLP)
Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABDUL HAMEED and another Petitioners Versus MAHBOOB ALI and 19 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR 1513 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABDUL HAMEED and another Petitioners Versus MAHBOOB ALI and 19 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR 1513 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR 1513 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR 1513 (PLP) (Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABDUL HAMEED and another Petitioners Versus MAHBOOB ALI and 19 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court, Lahore, dated 14th January, 1985 in C.R. No.21 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine, whether, the High Court should not have remanded the case to the District Court for hearing of petitioners' appeal on merits; and if not, whether the petitioners' revision could and should have been dismissed on the assumption that the order passed by Trial Court was unexceptionable and in this behalf the correctness, propriety and/or legality of the orders of the Trial Court might also require examination.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Civil Revision which had arisen out of petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Petitioners' evidence was closed by Court order on an assumption that they had failed to produce evidence despite adequate opportunity. Their suit was also dismissed. On their appeal the learned District Judge took the view that the petitioners had not affixed proper court‑fee, request for making up the deficiency was disallowed and their appeal was accordingly dismissed. On their Civil Revision the learned Judge did not agree with the appellate Court on the question of court‑fee. However, it on its own treated the order passed by the trial Court closing petitioners' evidence, as unexceptionable. The said order was restored on account of their conduct and accordingly their revision petition was dismissed notwithstanding the fact that the order impugned in revision was not found sustainable. We, after having perused the reasoning of the High Court and the trial Court consider it a fit case for grant of leave, inter alia, to examine; whether, the High Court should not have remanded the case to the learned District Court for hearing of the petitioners' appeal on merits; and if not, whether the petitioners revision could and should have been dismissed on the assumption that the order passed by the learned trial Court was un‑exceptionable. In this behalf the correctness, propriety and/or legality of the orders of the trial Court might also require examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of the appeal. M.A.K./M‑877/S Leave granted.