1991 PLP 1667 (SCMR)
Syed ABID ALI and others — Petitioners Versus Syed HABIB-UR-REHMAN through his Legal Heirs — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1667 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | Syed ABID ALI and others — Petitioners Versus Syed HABIB-UR-REHMAN through his Legal Heirs — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1667 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1667 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1667 (SCMR) (Syed ABID ALI and others — Petitioners Versus Syed HABIB-UR-REHMAN through his Legal Heirs — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th January, 1990.
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 21-12-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision 287-D of 1986). --Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was sought on the ground that on earlier revision of petitioners, High Court had observed that order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner was without notice to petitioners and as such not binding on them but in remand proceedings same order had been relied upon and made binding on petitioners which could not be done
Contention raised by petitioners requiring consideration; leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑Leave is sought on the ground that on an earlier revision of the petitioners, tile High Court had observed that the order dated 10‑10‑196,6 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was without notice to the petitioners and as such not binding on them; but in the remand proceedings the same order has been relied upon and made binding on the petitioners. It is submitted that that could not be done.
2. Contention raised requires consideration. Leave is granted. Security in the sum of Rs. 5,
000. Status quo shall be maintained. Appeal shall be processed on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if they so choose. H.B.T./A‑716/S Leave granted.