1981 PLP 208 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SURTA BI‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 208 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | SC (A J & K) |
| Bench Members | Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan, Actg. C J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SURTA BI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 208 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 208 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the SC (A J & K) bench comprising: Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan, Actg. C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 208 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SURTA BI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Aslam Khan, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 22‑5‑1980 in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1980). (a) Muhammadan Law‑ ‑ Dissolution of marriage‑Khula'‑‑‑Courts below finding that (i) relations between parties were extremely strained and there was no scope of reconciliation and, (it) parties in such circumstances might not live within limits, ordained by God and separation had become a muss‑Held, such finding of fact cannot be vitiated unless same suffers from misreading or non‑reading of evidence or based on surmises and conjectures.‑[Khula']. Abdul Majid v. Razia BIN and another P L D 1975 Lab. 796 and Balqls Fatima v. Najm‑u1‑Ikram P L D 1959 Lab. 566 ref. ‑‑ S. 100‑Second appeal‑Fallacy in appraising evidence of fact not amounting to a mistaken assumption but merely an error in coming to a finding of fact‑Held, not an error of law justifying interference in second appeal by High Court.‑{Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 22‑5‑1980 in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1980). (a) Muhammadan Law‑ ‑ Dissolution of marriage‑Khula'‑‑‑Courts below finding that (i) relations between parties were extremely strained and there was no scope of reconciliation and, (it) parties in such circumstances might not live within limits, ordained by God and separation had become a muss‑Held, such finding of fact cannot be vitiated unless same suffers from misreading or non‑reading of evidence or based on surmises and conjectures.‑[Khula']. Abdul Majid v. Razia BIN and another P L D 1975 Lab. 796 and Balqls Fatima v. Najm‑u1‑Ikram P L D 1959 Lab. 566 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
‑‑ S. 100‑Second appeal‑Fallacy in appraising evidence of fact not amounting to a mistaken assumption but merely an error in coming to a finding of fact‑Held, not an error of law justifying interference in second appeal by High Court.‑{Evidence]. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, Advocate for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Aslam Khan, Advocate for Respondent.