Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 3234 2019 SLD 3234 2019 MLD 2088
Sindh High Court
C. P. No. D-1205 of 2014 and C.M.A. No. 2551 of 2017, decision Dated: 06-03-2019. Hearing Dated: 08-12-2018.
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, JUSTICE KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Soomar Das R. Parmani along with Kanayalal.
Respondent(s) by: Bashir Ahmed Dargahi for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 along with Abdul Rehman Shaikh, Executive Engineer, RBOD-I Project WAPDA, Larkana on behalf No.3.

MOHAMMAD SALLAH THROUGH ATTORNEY AND 5 OTHERS

VS

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN WAPDA AND 4 OTHERS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: S.114,O.XIII,XXIII,XLVII,R.1,1(3)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 151,152

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 162

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 114 & O. XLVII, R. 1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 162---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Review---Scope---Constitutional petition having been disposed of on the statement of counsel that petitioners had alternate remedy---Restoration of petition---Limitation---Constitutional petition was disposed of on the statement of counsel that petitioners had alternate remedy---Petitioners had filed present petition for review of order whereby constitutional petition was disposed of on the statement of their counsel---Validity---Petition for review of order of High Court could be filed within twenty days---Present application had been filed after delay of one day which had not been explained---Application in question was time barred, in circumstances---Choice for not pressing the constitutional petition for availing remedy before competent forum was with the counsel of the petitioners---High Court was not to hold an inquiry to determine whether there did exist any legal remedy or not to the petitioners---High Court was bound only to examine competence of the person making such request for disposal of the case on his statement---Such like disposal did not create jurisdiction nor attached any legality to what the counsel or party had said---Nothing was on record that counsel for the petitioners was not authorized to withdraw the constitutional petition---Neither any mistake nor error was apparent on the face of record to review the impugned order passed by the High Court---Review petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Mrs. Sajeeda Nushat v. Shaikh Muhammad Hussain Qureshi and others PLD 2013 Sindh 320; Land Acquisition Officer v. Gul Muhammad PLD 2005 SC 311; PLD 2005 SC 512; Ikramul Haq v. Province of Sindh and others 2012 CLC 655; Mir Ghulam Abid v. Land Acquisition Officer/Collector 2004 YLR 77; Muhammad Hussain v. Chairman, N.H.A. and others 2009 MLD 1381; Adil Khan v. Secretary to Government of Pakistan 2017 MLD 937; Karachi Water and Sewerage Board v. Province of Sindh 2005 MLD 725; Government of N.W.F.P. v. Akbar Shah 2010 SCMR 1408; Mir Afzal v. Land Acquisition Collector/Assistant Commissioner 2005 MLD…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492