| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 771 1993 SLD 771 1993 CLC 1679 |
Sindh High Court
WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J
Nawabul Mukhtar Siddiqui for Plaintiff
WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J
Nawabul Mukhtar Siddiqui for Plaintiff
Syed WAHID ALI KAZMI--Plaintiff
VS
THE CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD and 3 others
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 203-D---Decision of Federal Shariat Court declaring any law or provision of law to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam---Such decision would take affect on the day specified by the Court---Decision of Federal Shariat Court, however, would not take effect before the expiration of period within which an appeal there from could be filed in Supreme Court and during its pendency if appeal was so riled---Kind of stay contemplated by Art. 203D(2) of the Constitution was not a mere stay of any declaration or directive given by the Federal Shariat Court in its s but was also basically a stay as regards the enunciation, of the principle, which apart from such , was not already being given effect to under some other provision of law or the Constitution. Muhammad In'shaullah v. C.C. Forest (B&E) PLD 1988 SC 155; Sh. Riazuddin v. Aqeelur Rehman Siddiqui PLD 1993 SC 76; Aejaz Haroon v. Inam Durran PLD 1989 Kar. 304; Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1991 Kar. 178 and Sandoz (Pak.) Ltd. v. Shahid lqbal Khan PLD 1991 Kar. 347 ref. ORDER The factual position is that the plaintiff did not affix the requisite court-fee on the plaint. Office had made a reference dated 18-11-1992. and pointed out that the Federal Shariat Court decision, reported as Mahmoodur Rehman Faisal v. Secretary, Ministry of Law PLD 1992 FSC 195, declaring the Court Fees Act, 1870, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam is under appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and in terms of Article 203-D(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan stands stayed pursuant to the '`"` preferment and pendency of such appeal. Accordingly per order, dated 22-11-1992, when the learned counsel for the plaintiff was called absent, the office note was accepted and the plaintiff was required to pay due court-fee within three weeks. The plaintiff pursuant to such order has preferred the CMA al Serial No.2 and maintains that the order dated- 22-11-1992 requires to be recalled, having been passed without according due hearing to the plaintiff and being in negation of settled principles of law and the Constitution. As to…
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