1989 PLP 1468 (SCMR)
MUKHTAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias ABDULLAH Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1468 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUKHTAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias ABDULLAH Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1468 (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 1468 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1468 (SCMR) (MUKHTAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias ABDULLAH Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 17th April, 1983 passed by Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.657 of 1983). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner pointed out certain discrepancies and other similar aspects relating to the appraisal of evidence so as to contend that findings of fact by two lower Courts merited to be set aside‑‑No justification having been found by Supreme Court for interference leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by Legal Representatives of a plaintiff, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of a case of inheritance. Respondent Muhammad Ashraf alias Abdullah claiming to be the son of Allah Ditta deceased claimed inheritance as his sole heir. Mst. Rabia Bibi sister of the deceased and the mother of the petitioners filed a suit challenging the claim of the respondent. It was held that Allah Ditta had died issueless and accordingly the suit was decreed. This finding of fact was reversed in appeal filed by the respondent and the appellate judgment having been upheld by the High Court in its Civil Re‑visional jurisdiction, leave to appeal has now been sought. Learned counsel has pointed out certain discrepancies and other similar aspects relating to the appraisal of evidence so as to contend that the findings of fact by the two learned higher Courts merited to be set aside. After hearing him, we have not been able to find out any justification for setting aside the concurrent findings of two higher Courts. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.B.A /M-825 /S Leave refused.