1990 PLP 694 (SCMR)
SADIO MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MADAD ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 694 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SADIO MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MADAD ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 694 (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 1990 PLP 694 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 694 (SCMR) (SADIO MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MADAD ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30‑4‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in Civil Revision No.175‑D of 1985/BWP). ‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑‑No error, legal or otherwise was discovered in so far as concurrent findings of fact rendered against petitioner were concerned‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH .J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by defendant side in a suit for declaration arid perpetual injunction; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Division. 1t had arisen out of a decree passed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs side which has been upheld throughout. Learned counsel pointed out that issue No.7 which related to the merits of the dispute regarding genuineness and effectiveness of the questioned mutation, has wrongly been decided in favour of the respondents. lie has also contended that the order of mutation decided in petitioner's favour should have been given some effect even if not binding. We have heard the learned counsel on these points. He admitted that the disputed mutation would not have a binding effect on respondents/plaintiffs' right. Accordingly he rightly pointed out that the main controversy now left to be resolved is regarding the decision of issue No.7. After hearing the learned counsel on facts and appreciation of evidence we have not been able to discover any error, legal or otherwise, in so far as the concurrent findings of fact rendered against the petitioner are concerned. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./S‑451/S Petition dismissed.