1989 PLP 2028(1) (SCMR)
Syed SAABAT HUSSAIN KIRMANI and others Petitioners Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2028(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Syed SAABAT HUSSAIN KIRMANI and others Petitioners Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2028(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2028(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2028(1) (SCMR) (Syed SAABAT HUSSAIN KIRMANI and others Petitioners Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 5‑10‑1981 in Civil Revision No. 650/13). ‑‑‑O. XVII, R. 3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Evidence, non production of‑‑Plaintiffs/petitioners did not produce any evidence despite several opportunities of adjournments were granted‑‑Suit was dismissed and order was upheld by Appellate Court and High Court‑‑High Court after examining the record came to the conclusion that enough indulgence had been shown to the plaintiffs for producing evidence and the plaintiffs themselves were at fault‑‑Held, plaintiffs/petitioners had a weak case on merits‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a suit for declaration, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The petitioners' suit was dismissed by the trial Court for the lack of evidence. Despite several opportunities by allowing adjournments no evidence was produced. The appellate Court and the High Court having upheld the decision of the trial Court, leave to appeal has now been sought. A learned Judge in the High Court examined the record and came to the conclusion that enough indulgence had been shown to the plaintiffs/petitioners side for producing evidence. Thus the petitioners themselves were at fault. After hearing the learned counsel on merits also, we feel that the petitioners have a weak case. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.A.K./S‑404/S Leave refused