1989 PLP 1135 (SCMR)
BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIR and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1135 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIR and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1135 (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 1135 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1135 (SCMR) (BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIR and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore; dated the 19th October, 1983, in Civil Revision No.1318/1983). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Gift‑‑Validity‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Pleas taken before Supreme Court were not pressed before the High Court and same related to the question of fact‑‑Such pleas, held, could not be entertained at leave granting stage.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for declaration regarding a gift against the dismissal b he High Court of his Civil Revision. The petitioner's case was that the gift made by his father in respondent's favour was against the then prevailing customary law. The suit was dismissed. The petitioner's Civil Revision met the same fate. The plea taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court regarding the customary law, is no more available to the petitioner on account of the change of law in the meanwhile. The learned counsel also tried to attack the gift on the ground that the donor was in the state of and further that other necessary conditions, for effectuating the gift were not satisfied. The pleas now taken were not pressed before the High Court. They related to the questions of fact and cannot be entertained at this stage. Otherwise too, the petitioner's case on merits is not such so as to justify interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./B‑96/S Petition dismissed.