Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUKHTAR AHMAD versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL


Interim Constitution Order 1981 Article 9 The Constitutional Appeal is seeking petitioners' withdrawal of requests for return of applicants so that the courts cannot be barred from expressing ownership or any other false orders can be submitted. Ultimately it can be effective in the path of the plaintiff when a negative verdict has been recorded against it. However, reserving their rights to challenge such injunctions in the minority of the courts, as presented by the applicant through a law course, was substantially the claim that withdrawal was allowed in the case of the plaintiff. In the event of a decision, the matter could be inflamed, subject to its permission under the law

1985 M L D 418

[Lahore]

Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J

MUKHTAR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Respondents

Writ Petition No.2009 of 1984, heard on 10th October, 1984.

Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981)

‑‑‑Art. 9‑‑Constitutional petition, withdrawal of‑‑Petitioner praying for withdrawal of petition to avoid expression of opinion on propriety or otherwise of impugned orders by Courts below which might ultimately stand in way of plaintiff in case adverse decision was recorded against him‑‑Petitioner, however, reserving his rights to challenge such orders in normal hierarchy of Courts as provided by law‑‑Course adopted by petitioner, held, was fair enough‑‑Prayer for withdrawal allowed in circumstances-plaintiff, would be free to agitate matter in case final decision was against him, subject of course to its permissibility under law.

Ch: Muhammad Ahmad Bani for Petitioner.

Ch. Arshad Mehmood for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 10th October, 1984.

JUDGMENT

I had heard learned counsel for the petitioner on 8‑10‑1984. He concluded his arguments on the said date. Learned counsel for the respondents was indisposed and as such the case was adjourned to enable him to address arguments on 10‑10‑1984. To avoid expression of opinion on the propriety or otherwise of the impugned orders by the Courts below which may ultimately stand in the way of the plaintiff in case an adverse decision is recorded against him, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition, reserving his rights to challenge these orders in the normal hierarchy of Courts as provided under the law. I also think that the course adopted by learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough. In this eventuality I did not call upon the learned counsel for respondent to address arguments. Prayer for withdrawal is allowed. Petition stands disposed in terms of the above‑noted prayer. Plaintiff /petitioner will be free to agitate the matter in case the final decision goes against him before the superior Courts subject of course to its permissibility under the law.

A. A.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
advocate for immigration from Dijkot lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.