1981 PLP 36 (CLC)
ABDUL LATIF‑Appellant Versus FAZAL ELLAHI‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 36 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | SC(AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Chaudhry Rahim Dad Khan, C. J. and Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL LATIF‑Appellant Versus FAZAL ELLAHI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 36 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 36 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the SC(AJ&K) bench comprising: Chaudhry Rahim Dad Khan, C. J. and Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 36 (CLC) (ABDUL LATIF‑Appellant Versus FAZAL ELLAHI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, Advocate for Appellant.
- Ch. Lal Hussain, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 17‑10‑1977 in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1976). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ S. 100‑Question of fact‑Second appeal‑Question of fact concurrently decided, held, cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless finding arrived at by Courts below erroneous or based on no evidence or misreading or non‑reading of evidence appears.‑[Question of fact‑Second appeal]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
S. 100‑Concurrent findings‑Second appeal ‑ Concurrent findings passed by Courts below based on proper consideration of oral evidence, held, cannot be vacated in second appeal even if High Court thinks inference drawn not fairly arising from evidence.‑[Second appeal]. Abdullah v. Muhammad Ali 1968 S C M R 711 and Sikandar v. Sultan Muhammad P L D 1974 S C 11 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑ S. 2(2) & O. XX, rr. 5 & 6‑Decree‑No doubt a Court can pass any decree which circumstances in a given case permit, but such decree must flow from pleadings and evidence of parties.‑[Decree]. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XX, rr. 5 & 6‑Decree‑A finding on a point alien to claim put forth by plaintiff regarding which no issue framed and parties not afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence, held, cannot be allowed to stand.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 100‑Question of fact‑Second appeal‑Question of fact concurrently decided, held, cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless finding arrived at by Courts below erroneous or based on no evidence or misreading or non‑reading of evidence appears.‑[Question of fact‑Second appeal]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
S. 100‑Concurrent findings‑Second appeal ‑ Concurrent findings passed by Courts below based on proper consideration of oral evidence, held, cannot be vacated in second appeal even if High Court thinks inference drawn not fairly arising from evidence.‑[Second appeal]. Abdullah v. Muhammad Ali 1968 S C M R 711 and Sikandar v. Sultan Muhammad P L D 1974 S C 11 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑ S. 2(2) & O. XX, rr. 5 & 6‑Decree‑No doubt a Court can pass any decree which circumstances in a given case permit, but such decree must flow from pleadings and evidence of parties.‑[Decree]. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XX, rr. 5 & 6‑Decree‑A finding on a point alien to claim put forth by plaintiff regarding which no issue framed and parties not afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence, held, cannot be allowed to stand. Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. Lal Hussain, Advocate for Respondent.