1991 PLP 788 (SCMR)
ABDUL WAHAB and 26 others — Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 788 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHAB and 26 others — Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 788 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 788 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 788 (SCMR) (ABDUL WAHAB and 26 others — Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Zafar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th January, 1990.
- Raja Muhammad Zafar‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 20-8-1989, passed in C.R. No. 127 of 1989).
Art.185(3)
Contention that documents pertaining to alleged grant of land by Khan-e-Azam of Kalat to respondent after he had abdicated, were fictitious documents and findings arrived by Majlis-e-Shoora and affirmed by High Court were without any proper scrutiny of evidence of witnesses and had erroneously rejected the findings of Trial Court
Impugned judgment needing consideration to sift that out whether it was really based on misreading and mi-representation
Leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Muhammad Zafar‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th January, 1990. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 20‑8‑1989, whereby the petitioners' Civil Revision No. 127/89 against the judgment of Majlis‑e‑Shoora, Sibbi, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit before the Court of Qazi Bhag, against the respondent for seeking declaration and permanent injunction claiming the ownership of the disputed land in Mauza Thattar of Tehsil Bhag. Haji Muhammad Hussain respondent contested the suit and submitted his written statement, repudiating the claim of the plaintiffs/petitioners. The Court framed seven contesting issues and after recording evidence in the matter, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners in their favour on 26‑1‑1989. Appeal of the defendant/respondent before Majlis‑e‑Shoora, Sibbi was accepted and the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners was set aside vide order dated 26‑4‑1989. The petitioners' civil revision before the High Court of Balochistan was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the documents pertaining to the alleged grant of 300 Jareebs of land by Khan‑e‑Azam of Kalat to the respondent after he was abdicated are fictitious documents and the findings arrived by the Majlis‑e‑Shoora and affirmed by the High Court are without any proper scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses and. have erroneously rejected the findings of the trial Court. On the other side the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence produced by the petitioners in the form of judgments and receipts of revenue paid to the Government, shows their physical possession of the disputed land for centuries past. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment needs consideration of this Court to sift it out whether it is really based on misreading and misrepresentation. Leave to appeal is therefore, granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. Appeal is to be made ready on the present record. However, the parties are allowed to file additional documents, if any. Status quo is to be maintained till the final disposal of the appeal. H.B.T./A‑749/S Leave granted.