1994 PLP 1109 (SCMR)
MIAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM BAQAR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1109 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | MIAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM BAQAR‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1109 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1109 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1109 (SCMR) (MIAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM BAQAR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 28‑4‑1993, passed in C.R. No. 357/90). ‑‑‑‑S. 175‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Shamlat‑‑‑All three Courts below had concurrently found that respondent had acquired right in the Shamlat to the extent of the share of vendor through purchase of the same; and there being neither any misreading of evidence by Court below nor lack of consideration of any material evidence on record, no case for interference with order of High Court was made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 28‑4‑1993, passed in C.R. No. 357/90). ‑‑‑‑S. 175‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Shamlat‑‑‑All three Courts below had concurrently found that respondent had acquired right in the Shamlat to the extent of the share of vendor through purchase of the same; and there being neither any misreading of evidence by Court below nor lack of consideration of any material evidence on record, no case for interference with order of High Court was made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th November, 1993. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 28‑4‑1993 whereby Civil Revision Application No.357 of 1990, filed by the petitioner against the two concurrent judgments was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before us only those contentions which were raised before the learned Judge in Chamber and which were repelled after taking due note of them in the light of the evidence produced in the case. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not belong to the proprietary body of the village which is the joint owners of .the `Shamalat'. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Zafar Iqbal, who had sold his share in `Shamalat' was one of the member of proprietary body of `Shamalat' and that the sale effected by said Zafar Iqbal in favour of the respondent was only to the extent of his share in the `Shamalat' land. All the three Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent had acquired the right in the `Shamalat' to the extent of the share of Zafar Iqbal through purchase of the same and there is neither any misreading of evidence by the Courts below nor lack of consideration of any material evidence on record. No case for interference with the orders of High Court is made out. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑1888/S Leave refused.