2002 PLP 31 (SCMR)
ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION NISHATABAD, FAISALABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 31 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION NISHATABAD, FAISALABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 31 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 31 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 31 (SCMR) (ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION NISHATABAD, FAISALABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aslam Riaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood‑ul‑Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑2‑1999 passed in I.C.A. 916 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Findings of fact‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Failure to file appeal against the judgment and decree‑‑‑Petitioner was found to be a guarantor, by the Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Instead of assailing the findings of the judgment and decree in appeal, the petitioners chose to lodge an F.I.R. against the loanee and the Bank Manager alleged that both of them had prepared a fictitious guarantee deed and petitioner had never signed the same‑-‑Validity‑‑‑Where the findings had attained finality, the same could not be undone by way of criminal proceedings, without filing of appeal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑2‑1999 passed in I.C.A. 916 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Findings of fact‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Failure to file appeal against the judgment and decree‑‑‑Petitioner was found to be a guarantor, by the Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Instead of assailing the findings of the judgment and decree in appeal, the petitioners chose to lodge an F.I.R. against the loanee and the Bank Manager alleged that both of them had prepared a fictitious guarantee deed and petitioner had never signed the same‑-‑Validity‑‑‑Where the findings had attained finality, the same could not be undone by way of criminal proceedings, without filing of appeal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. M. Aslam Riaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood‑ul‑Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2000. RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.‑‑‑Fact leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner stood guarantor of one Muhammad Akram, who had obtained loan from a bank. Said Muhammad Akram defaulted, therefore, a suit was instituted for recovery of the borrowed amount against the loanee as well as the guarantor. A decree was, accordingly, passed against both of them. Instead of challenging the said decree by way of appeal, the petitioner resorted to lodging of an F.I.R. against the loanee and the Bank Manager, Abdul Salam, with the allegation that both of them had prepared the deed of guarantee fictitiously as he had never signed the same. The Bank Manager filed a Constitutional petition for quashment of the said F.I.R. which was allowed. Thereafter, an I.C.A. was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Judge in Chambers passed in the Constitutional petition, which was also dismissed giving rise to the present petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the file. The judgment and decree was passed in the case by a Court of competent jurisdiction wherein the petitioner has been held to be the guarantor. The petitioner did not choose to assail the said findings which have attained finality but by way of criminal proceedings wants to undo the same but he cannot do so without filing of appeal. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave is refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑166/S Petition dismissed.