1987 PLP 737 (SCMR)
Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BIBI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 737 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BIBI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 737 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 737 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 737 (SCMR) (Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BIBI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑9‑1986 passed in Civil Revision No. 199 of 1986). ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. III, R. 2‑‑Dispute over sale of land‑‑Power of attorney‑‑Concurrent findings of fact against petitioner on question of contents and nature of power of attorney‑‑Such findings not found to be suffering from any infirmity‑‑No law or principle having been violated and there being no justification for interference leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th February, 1987. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 27‑9‑1986 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's civil revision arising out of a land suit which was decreed in respondents' favour, was dismissed. Muhammad Bibi respondent No.1 is the sister of Khurshid Bibi petitioner. Muhammad Bibi had challenged a sale of her land made by respondent No.2 Mst. Naseeban her mother, in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a general power of attorney; executed by Mst. Muhammad Bibi in favour of Mst. Naseeban. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The respondents' appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The petitioner challenged the decree through a revision in the High Court and the same having been dismissed, she has sought leave to appeal. There are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner on the question of the contents and the nature of power of attorney The plea of respondent No. 1 has been accepted that it was given by her, to the mother only to pursue a litigation and that she had not authorised the sale of her land and that the entry in that behalf in the power of attorney was inserted fraudulently. Learned counsel tried to show that these findings are incorrect. We do not agree. They do not suffer from any infirmity. No law or principle having been violated, there is no justification for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed. S.Q./G‑4/S Petition dismissed.