1988 PLP 1810 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH. — Petitioner Versus Mst. SABAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1810 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH. — Petitioner Versus Mst. SABAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1810 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1810 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1810 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH. — Petitioner Versus Mst. SABAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ata-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
- Mian Ata‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In this case the learned Advocate‑on‑Record has stated that the learned counsel having died, the petitioner has not engaged another counsel; therefore, he (the A.O.R.) is obliged to argue the petition. Hence we have heard him.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27-5-1981 in Civil Revision No.10 of 1981).
Art.185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Leave to appeal, grant of--Consistent findings of fact--Interference with- Petitioner assailing consistent findings of fact rendered by three Courts below--No infirmity, legal or otherwise having been found, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In this case the learned Advocate‑on‑Record has stated that the learned counsel having died, the petitioner has not engaged another counsel; therefore, he (the A.O.R.) is obliged to argue the petition. Hence we have heard him. The petitioner's Civil Revision relating to a gift made by his father Hassan Muhammad, has been dismissed by the High Court. He has now sought leave to appeal. According to the learned counsel, the donor had originally made the gift in favour of the petitioner Muhammad Bakhsh, his son, and respondent Mst.Saban, respondent, his widow. He (donor) subsequently filed a suit challenging the gift. The petitioner Muhammad Bakhsh did not contest it 'but the respondent contested it. It was dismissed by the High Court. Hassan Muhammad filed an appeal during the pendency whereof lie died. Muhammad Bakhsh petitioner, as legal representative of Hassan Muhammad, continued the appeal against Mst.Saban, who as stated by the learned counsel, is his step‑mother. This appeal was dismissed. His Civil Revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel tried to assail the consistent findings of fact of the learned Courts below rendered against the donor and in favour of Mst.Saban, the donee but without any success. No infirmity legal or otherwise having been found, this petition is dismissed. M.I. /M‑524/S Petition dismissed.