1984 PLP 1353 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — petitioner Versus SADIQ MUIIAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1353 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art.185(3)--Findings on question of fact--Concurrent findings on question of fact by three courts below -Held, cannot be interfered with--Leave to appeal refused. --Question Fact. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — petitioner Versus SADIQ MUIIAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1353 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1353 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art.185(3)--Findings on question of fact--Concurrent findings on question of fact by three courts below -Held, cannot be interfered with--Leave to appeal refused. --Question Fact. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1353 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — petitioner Versus SADIQ MUIIAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Watto, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Advocate-on-record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1983.
- Muhammad Afzal Watto, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.M. Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Aslam,..
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur hunch. dated 22-6-1983, in R.S.A. No. 280/79).
Art.185(3)--Findings on question of fact--Concurrent findings on question of fact by three courts below -Held, cannot be interfered with--Leave to appeal refused. --[Question Fact]. M.M. Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Aslam,..
Judgment & Decree
M.M. Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Aslam,.. Advocate-on-record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1983. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ The facts gloving rise to this petition :,.re, briefly, that Muhammad Hussain petitioner who is a Lambardar, was sent by the Tetis0dar to civil prison for failing to deposit of the land revenue amounting to about its. 3,000 collected by him. He was met in the jail by Muhammad Sadiq, alongwith the local Patwari. It is alleged that he told him, that he would pay the said amount to the Tehsildar and get him released he was asked by Sadiq aforesaid to sign certain documents in this connection, which he signed promptly. He was thereafter released on 28‑I1‑1969. A year later, on 28‑10‑1971, the petitioner filed a suit against Sadiq Muhammad respondent alleging that the documents got signed by him from the petitioner when he was in jail, were in fact, mutations regarding the alleged sale of 113 Kanals of land by Muhammad Hussain Lambardar (petitioner) in favour of Sadiq Muhammad and that the latter had obtained his (petitioner's) signature on the same by fraud and misrepresentation. The civil Court framed as many as 10 issues. Of them Issue No. 2 reads as follows:‑ "Whether the mutation No. 103 sanctioned on 22‑4‑1970 was product of collusion and fraud? O.P.P." This as well as the other issues were decided by the learned Civil Judge against the petitioner. He then filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed on 11‑3‑1979. The petitioner filed R.F.A. before the High Court which, too, was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition.
2. Before us the main contention raised by the petitioner s Counsel was that it has been established on the record that the signature on the mutations had been procured by the respondent 1ilougr; fraud Band misrepresentation. However, in view of the concurrent finding by all the three Courts below on this question of fact we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.