1991 PLP 1892 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus SARDAR and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1892 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus SARDAR and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1892 (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 1892 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1892 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus SARDAR and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1989.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-10-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.2133 of 1986).
Art. 185(3)
Only question involved in case was of fact: as to whether, petitioner had withdrawn his appeal filed by him before Appellate Authority below or not
Finding of fact recorded by High Court on such controversial question being against petitioner, there was no justification for grant of leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in a consolidation matter; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's Constitutional Petition. The only question involved is of fact: as to whether, the petitioner had withdrawn his appeal before the Collector or not: The High Court held the inquiry wherein the Collector stated that .the petitioner had withdrawn the appeal. The argument of the learned counsel that there was no justifiable reason for the petitioner, in the circumstances of this case, to have withdrawn the appeal, relates to the motive and intention of the petitioner with which the High Court was not concerned. The finding of fact on the controversial question of actual withdrawal being against the petitioner, we do not find any justification for grant of leave to appeal, the same, accordingly, is refused. However, before closing this order it needs to be noticed that on the announcement of the order the learned counsel made a request that an observation may be made that the petitioner might seek remedies before Criminal and/or Civil Courts. In the circumstances of this case it would not be proper to make any such observation without further proper hearing in this behalf; because, it might involve the examination of a further question; whether, the Collector made incorrect record and similarly incorrect statement and thus he may be guilty of falsification of record and that of perjury. If so advised the petitioner may make an independent application in that behalf. H.B.T./M‑1158/S Leave refused.