1987 PLP 109 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HANIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Subedar SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 109 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Subedar SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 109 (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 109 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 109 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HANIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Subedar SARDAR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Moulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 13‑1‑1985 in Civil Revision No. 181 of 1984).
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 13‑1‑1985 of the Peshawar High Court; whereby four civil revision petitions filed from the respondent‑side, were allowed. Sardar Khan respondent had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land in dispute was owned by him on account of purchase and that he was in its possession. He had also claimed consequential reliefs. It was decreed by the trial Court but the petitioners' (defendants') appeal was allowed. On further revision filed in the High Court the suit had been decreed on the concession made at the time of the hearing thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no such concession was made by the petitioners, who were respondents in the revisional proceedings before the High Court. The relevant part of the impugned judgment is reproduced below: "From the side of the respondents (petitioners herein) in all the cases Mohammad Zarif, Jan Mohammad and Mohammad Rafiq respondents are present in person. Out of whom Mohammad Rafiq claims himself to be attorney for the rest of the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance in presence of the parties, wherefrom the factum of sale was proved to the hilt as stated above and conceded by the parties. The parties and their counsel are, therefore, agreed that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is to be set aside and that o the trial Court is to be restored. Order accordingly." There is no reason for us to treat the statement of fact recorded in the above‑quoted part of the impugned judgment, as incorrect. That being so, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused. M.I. Petition dismissed.