1989 PLP 241 (SCMR)
Mst. KHUSHNOODI — Petitioner Versus AZIZ KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 241 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh arid Shafiur Rahntan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KHUSHNOODI — Petitioner Versus AZIZ KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 241 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 241 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh arid Shafiur Rahntan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 241 (SCMR) (Mst. KHUSHNOODI — Petitioner Versus AZIZ KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Judgment of the High Court of Sind,. Karachi, dated 71-11-1986 passed in Revision Application No. 145/1978).
Art. 185(3)--Petition for leave to appeal--Concurrent finding of facts recorded by Trial as well as Appellate Court on issues framed by Trial Court which were all decided against petitioner--Finding of these Courts not suffering from any such infirmity or deficiency as could have justified High Court in reopening issues in revision--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J‑.‑‑The petitioner who has been now ousted from a portion of the Quarter No. 5/336, Liaquatabad, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 11‑11‑1986 whereby her Revision Petition, against the concurrent findings of the two Courts, was dismissed with costs. The respondent Aziz Khan sued in 1968 the husband of the petitioner for getting possession of the aforesaid portion of the Quarter which according to him had been handed over to the husband of the petitioner as a licence, being his relative. The husband of the petitioner pleaded joint purchase of the Quarter or in the alternative adverse possession over it or an irrevocable licence under which he had invested in the superstructure. Issues were framed but on facts all were decided against the petitioner and the respondent was granted a decree of possession and mesne profits. The Appeal failed and so did the Revision. The petitioner personally appeared before us and sought to advance her case of an oral purchase of the site from the plaintiff‑respondent and his subsequent refusal to reduce the transaction to writing. We have examined the record arid find that the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below does not suffer from any such infirmity or deficiency as could have justified the High Court in reopening the issues in a Revision Petition under section 115 C.P.C. No merit is found and hence leave to appeal is refused. M.Y.H./K‑79/S Leave refused.