1986 PLP 1381 (SCMR)
FAIZ MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FEROZE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1381 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | FAIZ MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FEROZE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1381 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1381 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1381 (SCMR) (FAIZ MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FEROZE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court with Sheikh Salah-ud-Din Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th March, 1986.
- Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court with Sheikh Salah‑ud‑Din Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1-8-1979 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 683 of 1979).
Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 100 & 115--Second appeal filed by petitioner before High Court against a revisional order passed under S.115, Civil Procedure Code, by a District Court--Second appeal being not available, High Court dismissing same as incompetent- Impugned order being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 1‑8‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed as incompetent. On merits also some observations were made indicating that there was no force in the appeal.
2. Learned counsel has frankly conceded that the appeal was filed I against a revisional order passed under section 115 of C.P.C. by al District Court. That being so, no second appeal was competent before the High Court. We, therefore, dismiss this petition on question of jurisdiction alone and refuse to grant leave to appeal. With regard to the merits, if petitioners are so advised, they may seek remedy with the Consolidation Authorities, if otherwise, they have a good ease. M.Y.H. Appeal refused.