1989 PLP 519 (SCMR)
ASHIQ ALI- Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 519 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ASHIQ ALI- Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 519 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 519 (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: 1989 PLP 519 (SCMR) (ASHIQ ALI- Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-can-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1988.
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑can‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-6-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.2102 of 1987).
Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal--Questions raised related to facts which had been correctly determined against petitioner--No justification having been made out for interference, leave to appeal refused.
OXXI, R.58--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Identification of property--Raising of same plea before the Executing Court--Supreme Court instead of making any observation favourable to petitioner, expressed the view that if same controversy was again raised before Executing Court that would not he an honest pursuit and would also amount to abuse of process of law.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The question raised by the learned counsel in connection with which he has addressed all his arguments, is one of identity and location of the property in dispute. It has been resolved by the learned Courts below against the petitioner and by the High Court, in particular with reference to the petitioner's pleadings. The questions raised are essentially of facts which have been correctly determined against the petitioner. No justification having been made for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is accordingly, refused.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after hearing our order, pointed out that the petitioner would now raise the same plea before the executing Court. We instead of making any observation favourable to the petitioner in this behalf, which has perhaps been expected by the learned counsel, are of the view that if this controversy is again raised by the petitioner before the executing Court, that would not be an honest pursuit and would also amount to abuse of process of law.
3. With these observations this petition stands dismissed. AA./A‑381/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Leave to appeal refused.