2003 PLP 1847 (SCMR)
ALLAH RAKHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1847 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH RAKHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1847 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1847 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1847 (SCMR) (ALLAH RAKHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Irshad Ullah Chattha Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22-11-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1631 of 1999).
Art.185(3)
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Question raised by the petitioner before Supreme Court was never raised either at the trial or even at appellate level
Effect-- Supreme Court declined to allow to agitate the issue at such belated stage
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below were against the petitioner which findings were maintained even by the High Court-- Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The submission now being made before us, in support of this petition, is that the possessory rights of the petitioner had to be presumed after the sale of the land in question had been affected and therefore, he could not have been dispossessed of the suit-land.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been confronted with the pleadings. This question was never raised either at the trial or even at the appellate level. In this view of the matter, the petitioner could not be permitted to agitate this issue at this belated stage. This was the only question urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may, however, be added that on the factual plain, there is a concurrent finding against the petitioner which findings were maintained even by the Honourable High Court.
3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./A-324/S Petition dismissed.