1989 SCMR 1621 (PLP)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAYYAB and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1621 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAYYAB and 2 others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1621 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1621 (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: 1989 SCMR 1621 (PLP) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAYYAB and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all Civil Petitions)
- Nemo for Respondents (in all Civil Petitions).
- The learned Assistant Advocate‑General states that in addition to these petitions for leave to appeal several direct appeals by the Government as well as by the owners have been filed challenging the same judgment of the High Court. They include C.A‑18 to C.A‑22 and C.A‑54 of 1988 by the Government and C.A.‑ 212 and C.A‑233 of 1987 filed by the owners. He has further stated that all the points raised and involved in these petitions arc also involved in the afore‑noted appeals.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑All these petitions arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 7‑6‑1987 of the Lahore High Court. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General states that in addition to these petitions for leave to appeal several direct appeals by the Government as well as by the owners have been filed challenging the same judgment of the High Court. They include C.A‑18 to C.A‑22 and C.A‑54 of 1988 by the Government and C.A.‑ 212 and C.A‑233 of 1987 filed by the owners. He has further stated that all the points raised and involved in these petitions arc also involved in the afore‑noted appeals. Accordingly while condoning the delay in the relevant cases we grant leave to appeal in all these matters. The appeals arising out of them shall be heard with all other appeals including those afore‑noted wherein the same judgment of the High Court has been brought under challenge.The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction to file all essential documents. M.A.K./P‑98/5 Leave granted.