Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have gone through the impugned order and the record of the case, with his able assistance. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal error in the impugned order passed by the High Court, which may justify grant of leave to appeal. The impugned order is well-reas oned and we are of the considered view that it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, and leave declined.
2. We have, however , noted that the High Court has relied on a series of case law, referred to in the impugned order by reproducing the headnotes of the law reports. The headnotes preceding the judgment of a court are not a part of that judgment but are the notes prepared by the editors of the law-reports, highlighting the key law points discussed in the judgment and are supplied just to facilitate the reader with a summarized version of the salient features of the case which helps in quick ly scanning through the law reports. It is a matter of common knowledge that the headnotes are at times misleading and contrary to the text of the judgment. Headnotes by the editors of the law-reports cannot be taken as verbatim extracts of the judgment and relied upon as conclusive guide to the text of the judgment reported, hence they should not be cited as such. Therefore, it is neither safe nor desirable to cite a dictum by reference to the headnotes . We are sanguine that in future the High Courts and the District Courts while referring to a precedent or case law in their judgments and orders will cite the actual text of the judgment rather than place reliance on the headnotes thereof. See Salah-Ud-Din v. Zaheer-Ud-Din PLD 1988 SC 221; Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. V. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation AIR 2009 SC 6262; Farhat Nasreen v. Muha mmad Hussain PLD 1997 Kar 204.1 1