1987 PLP 1152 (SCMR)
Syed FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHARAM KHATOON and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1152 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan JJ |
| Parties | Syed FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHARAM KHATOON and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1152 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1152 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1152 (SCMR) (Syed FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHARAM KHATOON and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 6‑7‑1983 in Civil Revision No. 620 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 & O. IX, R.1‑‑Concurrent findings‑‑Non‑prosecution‑‑Finding of Trial Court which were affirmed in appeal and not interfered with in revision, challenged‑ None appearing in support of petition for special leave to appeal and there being no justification for interference, leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 6‑7‑1983 in Civil Revision No. 620 of 1982). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 & O. IX, R.1‑‑Concurrent findings‑‑Non‑prosecution‑‑Finding of Trial Court which were affirmed in appeal and not interfered with in revision, challenged‑ None appearing in support of petition for special leave to appeal and there being no justification for interference, leave refused. Nemo for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1987. SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave to appeal nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The basic controversy between the parties was whether at the time of his death Gaman Shah was a Sunni Muslim or a Shia Muslim. After examining the entire evidence, the trial Court, held, that he was of Sunni persuasions. The Additional District Judge reappraised the evidence and affirmed the finding of the trial Court. The High Court declined to interfere with it in revisional jurisdiction. We find no justification for interfering with this finding. This petition is accordingly dismissed for non‑prosecution as well as on merits. M.I. /F‑11/S Petition dismissed.