Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 400 of 1976, decided on 5th June, 1984.

(From the judgment -of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-1-1976 passed in Writ Petition No. 69 f 1970).

---Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Impugned order of High Court passed more than eight years ago and,, there had been no stay of proceedings- Counsel of petitioners unable to state, for want of instructions, as to the fate of remand proceedings--Presumption that proceedings may have ended--Leave to appeal refuse I.

Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

Date of hearing: 5th June, 1984.

This petition arises out of a consolidation proceeding which was sanctioned on 28-9-1960 but was amended at the instance of the respondents on 22-5-1962, against which the petitioner agitated and in the result of his revision, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), by his order, dated 25-6-1968, remanded the matter with certain directions. The petitioner challenged his order first before the Member, Board of Revenue, in revision and upon its dismissal, before the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction but failed there, too.

2. The impugned order of the High Court was passed more than eight years ago, on 28-1-1976. There has been no stay of the proceeding. Yet, learned counsel is unable to say, for want of instructions, as the fate of the remand proceeding. The proceedings may have ended. This is, therefore, not a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed.

M.Z.M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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