1982 PLP 145 (SCMR)
HABIB SHAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus RAFFAT PASHA AHD OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 145 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HABIB SHAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus RAFFAT PASHA AHD OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 145 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 145 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 145 (SCMR) (HABIB SHAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus RAFFAT PASHA AHD OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Chaudhri Zamir Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Chaudhri Zamir Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On petition against the judgment dated 8th July, 1975 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1966).
Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Officer complained against not found to have committed fraud by obtaining signatures of parties on blank paper and written down their statements according to his own notions Held, nothing on record sustaining petitioner's submission, leave to appeal declined. Date of bearing : 10th February, 1981.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 185 (3)‑Leave to appeal‑Officer complained against not found to have committed fraud by obtaining signatures of parties on blank paper and written down their statements according to his own notions Held, nothing on record sustaining petitioner's submission, leave to appeal declined. Chaudhri Zamir Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of bearing : 10th February, 1981. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑During the consolidation proceedings the parties to this case referred the question of consolidation of their holdings to arbitra tion. The Arbitrator gave an award. The Assistant Consolidation Officer partitioned the joint property in accordance with the "compromise between the parties dated 6‑3‑1964". The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector alleging that the thumb‑impression had been obtained on a blank paper on which incorrect statements were later recorded and the award was not implemented. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 24‑6‑1964 as the record did not bear out the submissions made by the petitioners. A revision petition was similarly rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Con solidations), Multan and a further revision petition met the same fate at the bands of the Member, Board of Revenue on 1‑9‑1966.
2. The only point urged before us is that the Award should have bee implemented. That such a matter cannot be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940 needs no gainsaying. The sheet of paper being pressed into service as an Award is, therefore, not worth the paper on which it is written. Even otherwise it is not possible for us to believe that the Assistant Consolidation Officer committed fraud by obtaining signatures of the parties on a blank paper and then wrote down their statement according to his own notions. There is nothing on the record on which the submission of the petitioner can be sustained and we find no fault with the order of the Lahore High Court. This petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.