1998 PLP 2729 (SCMR)
Messrs PAK‑ARAB REFINERY LIMITED through General Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL LATIF‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2729 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs PAK‑ARAB REFINERY LIMITED through General Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL LATIF‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2729 (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 1998 PLP 2729 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2729 (SCMR) (Messrs PAK‑ARAB REFINERY LIMITED through General Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL LATIF‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehsanullah Khan Lilla, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent. .
- Date of hearing: 11th July, 1995.
- Ehsanullah Khan Lilla, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad, dated 24‑1‑1995 passed in IInd Appeal No.39 of 1983). ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court were reversed by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction‑‑=Effect‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether High Court, while exercising its revisional powers under S. 115, C.P.C., was justified in reversing concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court, and also to examine as to whether or not findings of High Court suffered from misreading/non‑reading of evidence.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the High Court, while exercising its revisional powers under section 115, C.P.C., was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, and also to examine as to whether or not the findings of the High Court suffer from misreading/non-reading of evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000 before 17-4-1995 in compliance with the order of this Court dated 5-4-1995 passed in Chambers. The interim relief granted on 5-4-1995 shall continue till the disposal of the appeal. A.A./P-18/S Leave granted,