1968 SCMR 209 (PLP)
SULTAN AHMA D-Petitioner Versus MOSTAFA KHATUN AND 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 209 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN AHMA D-Petitioner Versus MOSTAFA KHATUN AND 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 209 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 209 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 209 (PLP) (SULTAN AHMA D-Petitioner Versus MOSTAFA KHATUN AND 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Farid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abu Backkar, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 27th June 1966, in S. A. No. 1625 of 1961). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100-Finding of fact not based on misreading of evidence nor on mere surmises and conjectures-Finding cannot be disturbed in second appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-This petition is barred by 320 days. We would have nevertheless condoned the delay because time was spent in pursuing the application for a certificate under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, but there is no merit in the petition. The petitioner claimed that Salimullah Chowdhury, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had entered into an agreement with him to lease out the suit premises at a rental of Rs. 10 p.m., and a selami of Rs. 600 out of which Rs. 200 were paid. On examining the entire evidence on record and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case the first Court of appeal found that the agreement to lease out on which the suit for specific performance of the contract was based was a forged document and the petitioner who is a lawyer's clerk obtained the signature of Salimullah Chowdhury on a blank .paper and later on forged the agreement to lease on it. It was also held that no selami was paid by the petitioner to Salimullah Chowdhury under the said agreement. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the District Judge the petitioner preferred a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed by the learned Judges on the short ground that it was concluded by a finding of fact. It was not the petitioner's case that the finding by the first Court of appeal was in any manner vitiated such as, by misread ing of evidence or was based on surmises and conjectures the view taken by the High Court regarding the scope of the appeal Preferred by the petitioner was in the circumstances quite correct. We do not think that a case for interfering with the order of the High Court is made out. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.