P (PLP)
ABDUL RASHID — ‑Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID — ‑Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (ABDUL RASHID — ‑Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL RASHID.‑--By our order dated the 16th October, 1950, we dismissed the petition of Abdul Rashid for special leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of the High Court of judicature at Lahore. In the recital of the facts given in the beginning of our order two inaccuracies have accidentally crept in. They are as follows :‑ (i) "The petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge. This point was not taken in that appeal". (ii) The words "in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction" in the next sentence. The inaccuracies pointed out above occur in the recital of the facts given in the beginning of the order. They have no connec tion with the operative part of the order. Rule (3) of order 10 of the rules of this Court runs in the following terms :‑
"A judgment pronounced by the Court or by a majority of the Court or by a dissenting judge in open Court shall not after wards be altered or added to, save for the purpose of correcting a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from any accidental slip or omission'". The two errors pointed out above are due to an accidental slip and fall within the purview of this rule. Mr. Mohsin Shah, who was asked to address us in respect of the inaccuracies, contended that these inaccuracies did not amount merely to an accidental slip or omission. We consider there is no force in this contention. We, accordingly, order that the following portions shall be omitted from our judgment. (i) "The petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge. This point was not taken in that appeal". (ii) The words "in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction" at the conclusion of the next sentence. A.H Portions Omitted.