1970 PLP 622 (SCMR)
MASTER TAHILRAM-Petitioner Versus LILARAM-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 622 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MASTER TAHILRAM-Petitioner Versus LILARAM-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 622 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 622 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 622 (SCMR) (MASTER TAHILRAM-Petitioner Versus LILARAM-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (F. M. Anwari, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑P. S. L. A. No. K‑30 of 1969 called in question the appointment of a receiver of the lands in dispute by the District Judge on appeal till the decision of the suit instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for declara tion of title and affirmation of possession. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner in the view that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that there was danger of the lands being alienated. The petitioner was also found to have cut the standing trees on the land. As the appointment of receiver was just and proper on the concurrent findings of the Courts below, leave to appeal was refused by the order dated the 9th May 1969. The petitioner now seeks review of the order, but without making out a proper case for re‑consideration of the Court's decision. Neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. On the contrary we have on re‑examining the record reached the same conclusions, namely, that it was just and proper to appoint a receiver of the lands in dispute till the final decision of the suit. The petition for review is, accordingly, rejected. Petition dismissed.