| Case ID |
ec7adc6e-fb8c-493d-9826-cbef28727230 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition No.32-K of 2010 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 04, 2010 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The petitioners challenged the order dated 11-11-2009 issued by a learned Division Bench of the High Court, which stated that it was passed by consent of the parties. The petitioners' counsel claimed that neither the petitioners nor their counsel consented to this order, referencing an affidavit to support this assertion. However, the Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing, noting that two judges of the High Court had confirmed that consent was indeed given on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently, the appeal was deemed incompetent under the circumstances presented. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition but clarified that this ruling would not prevent the petitioners from filing an appropriate application before the High Court if they so desired. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of consent in legal proceedings, particularly in the context of a High Court order that was purportedly agreed upon by the parties involved. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the validity of the consent claimed by the High Court, ultimately concluding that the petitioners' arguments were insufficient to overturn the prior ruling. This case highlights the importance of clear consent in legal matters and the implications of such consent on the right to appeal. Keywords: consent in legal proceedings, Supreme Court Pakistan, High Court order, legal appeal, petition for leave to appeal. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA,
ANWAR ZAHEER,
JAMALI,
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Latif Ansari,
Qadir Jatoi
|
| Petitioners |
others,
ABDUL KHALID
|
| Respondents |
others,
PROVINCE OF SINDH
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 2698,
2010 SCMR 583
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
|
| Sections |
Art. 185(3)
|