1991 PLP 1816 (SCMR)
UMAR DIN — Petitioner Versus GHAZANFAR ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1816 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR DIN — Petitioner Versus GHAZANFAR ALI and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1816 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1816 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1816 (SCMR) (UMAR DIN — Petitioner Versus GHAZANFAR ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 1989.
- Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 6-5-1985 of the Lahore High Court, in R.SA. No.577 of 1979). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O. XX, 'R.5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Appellate Court below although had not discussed each issue separately, but had given its findings on all points raised before it
Contention that judgment recorded by Appellate Court below and upheld by High Court was not proper as Appellate Court while accepting appeal did not record separate findings on each issue, was repelled-- Finding of Appellate Court on merits and affirmed by High Court to the effect that disputed portion of property was evacuee and was duly transferred to respondent by competent Settlement Authority, not suffering from any infirmity
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The dispute between the parties relates to a portion of an Ahata situate in Chak No.120/S.P. Tehsil Sargodha. The petitioner filed a suit for the possession of the disputed portion on the assertion that he was a transferee thereof since 20‑11‑1947. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal by the respondent it was dismissed by the District Judge. The petitioner filed a regular second appeal in the High Court but this too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the learned Additional District Judge while accepting the appeal of the respondents did not record separate findings on each issue and for that reason he had not delivered a proper judgment.
3. We have seen the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and find no merit in the contention. It is true that the learned District Judge has not discussed each issue separately but he has given his findings on all the points that were raised before him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment recorded by him is not a proper one.
4. On merits, there is a finding of the learned Additional District Judge which was affirmed by the High Court that the portion in dispute was evacuee property and was transferred by the Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities to the respondent. The learned counsel has not been able to show that this finding suffers from any infirmity. Leave is refused. H.B.T./U‑25/S Leave to appeal refused.