1987 PLP 312 (SCMR)
FAZAL ELAHI‑‑Petitioner Versus SARFRAZ KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 312 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL ELAHI‑‑Petitioner Versus SARFRAZ KHAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 312 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 312 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 312 (SCMR) (FAZAL ELAHI‑‑Petitioner Versus SARFRAZ KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑1‑1982 in R.S.A. No 36 of 1969). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Concurrent finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence‑‑High Court, held, justified in not interfering with same‑‑No case having been made out for grant of leave to appeal, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and decree, dated 30‑1‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. The property in dispute in this petition is a house situate in village Noorpur Thal of District Sargodha. It was owned by a Hindu and after Independence it was occupied by the father of the respondent. In 1956 the petitioner filed a suit for possession of the house on the foot of a sale allegedly made in his favour on 25‑9‑1942 by the Hindu owner. The suit was later withdrawn. On 20‑2‑1960 the house was transferred to the father of the respondent and he was issued a P . T . 0 . On 11‑3‑1961 the petitioner filed a suit against the Hindu owner for a declaration that he was the owner of the house and obtained an ex parte decree on 29‑11‑1961. When the respondent came to know of this decree he on 10‑4‑1962 instituted the present suit. In the suit he sought a declaration to the effect that the decree obtained by the petitioner on 29‑11‑1961 was based on fraud and misrepresentation and had no effect on his rights. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeals before the Additional District Judge and the High Court remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal in this Court.
3. There is a concurrent finding of the Courts below that the petitioner had obtained the ex parte decree on 29‑11‑1961 by fraud and misrepresentation. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. The High Court was, therefore, justified in not interfering with this finding. In view of this finding no case for grant of leave to appeal. to the petitioner has been made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.