1990 PLP R749 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP R749 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP R749 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP R749 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP R749 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 2‑12‑1986, passed in Civil Revision No.337‑D of 1986/BWP). ‑‑‑Ss.42 & 54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Suit for declaration and permanent injunction‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Suit of petitioner was dismissed by Trial Court on finding of fact and appeal against dismissal order was dismissed by Appellate Court on merits while both concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Courts below were upheld by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Petitioner had not raised any new point, but had argued only those points which stood concluded by concurrent findings of all three Courts below‑‑Case, being not fit for grant of leave to appeal, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 2‑12‑1986, whereby his civil revision against the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, was dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the land in dispute which was originally owned by Muhammad Boota deceased. The petitioner claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the suit land and according to him he had acquired the rights of ownership under the law of prescription, and all the three mutations (detailed description of which is given in the plaint) of inheritance in favour of the respondents/defendants were illegal, void and liable to be rectified. The suit after contest by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Liaquatpur vide his order dated 20‑2‑1986. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge‑III, Rahimyar Khan failed on 26‑10‑1986, and his civil revision before the High Court was also dismissed in limine, vide impugned judgment. After going through the findings of the Courts below in the light of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the suit of the petitioner was 'dismissed on finding of facts. His appeal before the District Court was dismissed on merits. Both the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts were not interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The learned High Court also held that "the suit had abated under the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983 and an appeal against the trial Court's decree of dismissal of petitioner's suit did not lie." Learned counsel for the petitioner argued all those points which stand concluded by the concurrent findings of all the three Courts below. We consider that it is not a fit case in which leave to appeal is to be granted. 1t is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./G‑259/S Petition dismissed.