1989 PLP 1206 (SCMR)
FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus HASSAN SHAH and 4 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1206 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus HASSAN SHAH and 4 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1206 (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 1989 PLP 1206 (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: 1989 PLP 1206 (SCMR) (FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus HASSAN SHAH and 4 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Shafi Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (absent).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21‑2‑1984 in C.R. No.301/D of 1984). ‑‑‑OXXXIV, R.8‑A‑‑Suit for possession through redemption‑‑Claim by defendant for payment of full compensation for improvements and opportunity of being heard‑‑Petitioner/defendant neither asked for production of any evidence nor did he insist on framing an issue about the said claim‑‑Trial Court had acted on the report of Local Commissioner/Referee‑‑High Court found that defendant/petitioner could not contend before High Court at revisional stage that it was the Court which failed to perform its duty‑‑Defendant/petitioner himself should have at least asked the Court to examine, if there was any evidence with hire or if he wanted to produce any‑‑No impropriety having been found in the order of the High Court, leave to appeal against such order was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, in a suit for possession through redemption, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. The petitioner has lost the case throughout. The only question now raised before this Court by the learned counsel, is that full compensation for improvements has not been awarded in favour of the petitioner nor he was afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence in this behalf. The argument as advanced before the High Court and its treatment in the impugned judgment are reproduced below‑‑ "It is contended by the learned counsel that a sum of Rs.2 lacs has been claimed as the value of the improvements made on the land, the trial Court erred in law in allowing Rs.5,
400. The precise grievance is that no opportunity had been allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence and the entire reliance has been placed on the report of the Local Commissioner/Referee .....As the petitioner nether asked for production of any evidence nor did he insist on framing an issue about the point raised and as the trial Court acted on the report of the Local Commissioner/referee, it is too late in the day to accept the contention that it is the Court which failed to perform its duty. It was the duty of the petitioner to have at least asked the Court to examine, if there was any evidence with him or if he wanted to produce any." When confronted with the observations of the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to press the petition any further. However, on our questioning with regard to the details of the improvements, we have not been able to find any serious impropriety on merits in the impugned order, either. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./F‑110/S Leave refused.