1989 PLP 495 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 495 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 495 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 495 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 495 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988.
- Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of Lahore High Court dated 6-11-1987 in C. R. No.494-D of 1987).
S.50--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Plaintiffs' evidence in suit on basis whereof suit was decreed, assailed as inadmissible and contrary to provisions of S.50, Evidence Act, 1872--Record showed that neither any inadmissible evidence had been taken into consideration nor provisions of S.50, Evidence Act, 1872 had been violated--Neither any error of law nor any question of public importance which needed examination existed--Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad Noor, resident of Chak Khushi, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan District Chakwal, seeks leave to appeal against the order of Lahore High Court dated 19‑11‑1987, whereby the Civil Revision filed by him was dismissed and the order of the District Judge was confirmed. The sole contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Courts below accepted the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs which was inadmissible and contrary to section 50 of the Evidence Act and decreed the suit. Hence, the impugned order of the Lahore High Court needs to be set aside. This contention has no force. We have examined the statement of one of the plaintiffs in the light of the aforesaid provision of the Evidence Act. We don't find that any inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or the said provision of the Evidence Act has not been complied with. There is neither any error of law nor any question of public importance, which needs to be examined by this Court. Leave is accordingly refused. AA./M‑674/S Leave to appeal refused.