1989 PLP 1766 (SCMR)
GHULAM DASTGIR and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMAL DIN and 3 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1766 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM DASTGIR and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMAL DIN and 3 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1766 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1766 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1766 (SCMR) (GHULAM DASTGIR and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMAL DIN and 3 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hakam Qureshi, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to 4.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th September, 1984 in C.R. No. 1254‑D of 1980). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Controversy with regard to genuineness of alienation stood concluded by findings of fact‑‑Notwithstanding technical objection the findings of fact were unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side in a suit for declaration; against the acceptance by the High Court of respondent's Civil Revision.
2. The respondents had challenged the alienation by their predecessor‑in -interest‑‑named Naiki in petitioners' favour as fake and forged. The trial Court decreed the suit, inter alia, on the finding that Naiki had died during the disturbances at the time of partition many years before the execution of the disputed transfer deed. Petitioners' appeal succeeded but on respondents' civil revision, the trial Court decree was restored. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides the controversy with regard to the genuineness of alienation stands concluded by findings of fact. The technical objection notwithstanding, in our view, the impugned findings of fact are unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, therefore is refused as it is not a fit case in that behalf. M.A.K./G‑202/S Petition dismissed.