1990 PLP 441 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAN1‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR AHMAD BUTT‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 441 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAN1‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR AHMAD BUTT‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 441 (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 441 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 441 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAN1‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR AHMAD BUTT‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Bani, Advocate Supreme Court and S. nayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments of the Lahore High Court dated 8‑6‑1985 in Civil Revision No.1252‑D of 1985). ‑‑‑S115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for possession by Respondent decreed‑‑Petitioner lost throughout on question of fact‑‑Petitioner seeking reappraisal of evidence‑‑Plea of misreading and non‑reading of evidence having been duly noticed by High Court, but for good reasons it did not find favour in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Bani, Advocate Supreme Court and S. nayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of respondent's suit for possession of the disputed shop, which has been decreed. The petitioner has lost throughout on questions of fact. The High Court while dismissing the revision did not rind any non‑reading or mis‑reading of evidence. However, learned counsel contended that while the documents relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff showed the property in dispute as a plot belonging to him, in reality the suit property is a built up shop. He further stated that the, documents relied upon by the petitioner showed that it was a built up shop. The point raised by the learned counsel having been noticed the respondent was held to be the owner of the land underneath the shop and the petitioner bad, been permitted to remove the superstructure. After hearing the learned counsel we do not find any force in this contention. The plea of misreading and non‑reading of evidence having been duly noticed by the High Court, for good reasons, it did not find favour in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./A‑601/S Leave refused.