2014 PLP 1819 (SCMR)
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus Haji AURANGZEB through Legal Heirs and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1819 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Gulzar Ahmed and Dost Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZ-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus Haji AURANGZEB through Legal Heirs and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1819 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 1819 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Gulzar Ahmed and Dost Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1819 (SCMR) (AZIZ-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus Haji AURANGZEB through Legal Heirs and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Khalil ur Rehman Khan Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th September, 2014.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 4-11-2013 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench passed in Civil Revision No.168 of 2011)
Art. 185(3)
Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court
Scope
When the two courts of fact below i.e. Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had drawn their conclusions which were consistent with the evidence and there was no perversity or any defect in their judgments, then the Supreme Court was not required to embark upon any detailed examination of evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioners-defendants impugn the judgments of the three Courts below. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and have also gone through the impugned judgments and record with their able assistance. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent had established his case in respect of the area measuring 10 feet 10 inches x 13 feet 2-1/2 inches which is subject matter of the present dispute. While exercising our jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, we are not required to embark upon any detailed examination of evidence because the two Courts of fact i.e. trial Court and the learned Additional District Judge in first appeal, have drawn their conclusions which are consistent with the evidence and there is no perversity or any defect in their judgments. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. MWA/A-13/SC Petition dismissed.