1989 PLP 1677 (SCMR)
Mst. SATTAN and others Petitioners Versus Mst. RANT and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1677 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SATTAN and others Petitioners Versus Mst. RANT and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1677 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1677 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1677 (SCMR) (Mst. SATTAN and others Petitioners Versus Mst. RANT and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed H. M. Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record (in C.P. No. 678 of 1981) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13‑3‑1981 in Civil Revision No.51 of 1975). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Findings of fact reached by two Courts below were not such so as to attract revisional jurisdiction of High Court for interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two different petitions arising out of separate judgments of Lahore High Court involve similar question. They arc being disposed of together. In C.P. 678 the petitioners‑plaintiffs' plea that Khuda Bakhsh (deceased) was a Shia by faith, having failed before the revenue authorities in the mutation proceedings, their suit was also dismissed. Their Civil Revision having been dismissed by the High Court, leave to appeal has now been sought by the petitioners on the main pica that Khuda Bakhsh was a Shia by faith. In C.P. 085 which has been filed by the defendant's side, the question of fact involved is reverse to the one noted above. According to the respondents plaintiffs side Khushi Muhammad (deceased in this case) was a Shia, while the petitioners' plea was that he was a Sunni. The decision of the revenue authorities not having been considered as conclusive, the respondent's suit was decreed on the finding that Khushi Muhammad was a Shia. The appellate Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Their revision having also been dismissed by the High Court, they have now sought leave to appeal on the main plea that Khushi Muhammad (deceased) was a Sunni. The main feature in both the cases is whether the High Court in the circumstances thereof, should have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower Courts in its revision jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for respective petitioners in both the cases, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgments. They do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. The pica in the first case that Mst. Rant respondent therein, had made certain admissions before the revenue authorities, and, similar plea in the second case that Muhammad Ishaque attorney of the respondents side, had made an admission before the revenue authorities having also been considered, we have not been persuaded to change the aforestatcd view that the findings of fact in these two cases reached by the learned two Courts below, were not such so as tot' attract revisional jurisdiction of the High Court for interference therewith. Accordingly, finding no force in these two petitions, (cave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./S‑308/S Leave refused.