1987 PLP 117 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑‑Petitioner Versus DAULAT ALI Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 117 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S.A. Nusrat and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑‑Petitioner Versus DAULAT ALI Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 117 (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 117 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S.A. Nusrat and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 117 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑‑Petitioner Versus DAULAT ALI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑5‑1978 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 431 of 1978). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Second appeal‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑High Court declining to interfere in Second Appeal, in a matter which stood concluded by concurrent findings of fact‑‑No question of law arising, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Second appeal‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑High Court declining to interfere in Second Appeal, in a matter which stood concluded by concurrent findings of fact‑‑No question of law arising, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th October, 1986. S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The dispute relates to a house property situate in Boreywalla Town of District Vehari. The petitioners claimed ownership of the property by virtue of the Permanent Transfer Order issued in their favour. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale said to have been executed by the petitioners on 6‑10‑1969. The suit after contest was decreed in favour of the plaintiff /respondent. The petitioners preferred appeal against the such judgment and decree which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan. Thereafter, a Second Appeal was preferred by the petitioners in the High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. We have gone through the record of the case. The learned Judge in the High Court was indeed justified in dismissing the Second Appeal on the ground that the matter stood concluded by concurrent findings of fact. No question of law arises in the case. The petition is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.