1988 PLP 1750 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus NAWA B — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1750 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Majaddid Mirza |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus NAWA B — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1750 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1750 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Majaddid Mirza.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1750 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus NAWA B — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th July, 1988.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 27-9-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in --S.115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Revisional jurisdiction--Finding of fact--Finding of fact by Trial Court reversed in appeal by Additional District Judge--High Court declined to interfere--Order impugned--No case having been made out for. interference by High Court in revisional jurisdiction with finding of Additional District Judge, petition found to be without any merit--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Mst. Irshad Begum was owner of 35/14336 share in Khata No.249/2460 in village Pindi Gheb District Attock. By a registered deed dated 25‑1‑1984, she sold 6 marlas out of her share to the petitioner. Similarly, by another registered sale‑deed dated 4‑2‑1984, she sold another 4 marlas in favour of the respondent. The question for consideration in this petition is whether the land sold by her to the respondent was a part of the land transferred to the petitioner. The trial Court answered this question in the affirmative but on appeal by the respondent, the Additional District Judge, Attock, took a contrary view. In revision the High Court declined to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not satisfied that any case for interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge was made out. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.I.IM‑521/S ‑ Petition dismissed.