1987 PLP 2494 (CLC)
ZAMAN MAHNDI and another‑ ‑Petitioner Versus SALEHUN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2494 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | ZAMAN MAHNDI and another‑ ‑Petitioner Versus SALEHUN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2494 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2494 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2494 (CLC) (ZAMAN MAHNDI and another‑ ‑Petitioner Versus SALEHUN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.M. Sarwar for Petitioners.s
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Art. 129‑‑Where a question of fact arises as to what happened in the lower Court, statement of Presiding Judge is conclusive‑‑No affidavit by an Advocate or a party is admissible to controvert the statement of Judge. Katta R.Venkatesayya and another v. Muhammad Ghouse Saheb A I R 1944 Mad. 450; Reg v. Pastonji 10 Bom. H.C.R. 75 and Rex v. Grant 110 E.R. 1092 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Art. 129‑‑Where a question of fact arises as to what happened in the lower Court, statement of Presiding Judge is conclusive‑‑No affidavit by an Advocate or a party is admissible to controvert the statement of Judge. Katta R.Venkatesayya and another v. Muhammad Ghouse Saheb A I R 1944 Mad. 450; Reg v. Pastonji 10 Bom. H.C.R. 75 and Rex v. Grant 110 E.R. 1092 ref. C.M. Sarwar for Petitioners. This Civil Revision has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order, dated 15‑9‑1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Gujrat whereby, on the basis of a report of denial made by the Civil Judge concerned about certain remarks attributed to him as having been made during the trial of their suit, he declined their prayer for transfer of their suit from his Court.
2. The order impugned herein relates to the domain of discretionary jurisdiction and cannot be said to have been passed by the learned District Judge either fancifully or arbitrarily inasmuch as it stands judicially recognised that where a question of fact arises as to what happened in the lower Court, the statement of the presiding Judge is conclusive. No affidavit by an Advocate or a party is admissible to controvert the statement of the Judge. See Katta R. Venkatesayya and another v. Muhammad Ghouse Saheb A I R 1944 Mad. 450 wherein so was held on the basis of two earlier judgments reported as Reg v. Pastonji 10 Bom. H.C.R. 75 and Rex v. Grant 110 E.R. 1092.
3. There does not exist a case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, dismissed in limine. M.B.A./Z‑29/L. Revision dismissed.