1989 PLP 1127 (SCMR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1127 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1127 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1127 (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 1127 (SCMR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 27‑11‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.1658/D of 1982)
S..115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.185(3)‑‑Money decree‑‑No infirmity found in the findings and decisions of the two Courts below so as to attract the corrective civil revisonal jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115, C.P.C.‑‑Impugned judgment of High Court did not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a debtor/defendant against a money decree and the consequential dismissal of' his civil revision in that behalf. Learned counsel has contended that in the background of the case, regarding which he gave the detailed facts, the execution of the promissory note relied upon by the respondent's side is not denied. But there was not enough evidence to show that the money consideration had passed between the parties. He has also tried to show that the promissory note in question has been misread. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we have not been able to find any such infirmity in the findings and the decisions of the learned two Courts below so as to attract the corrective civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.BA./M‑815/S Leave refused.