1991 PLP 1885 (SCMR)
THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB, through Secretary, Education Department — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1885 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB, through Secretary, Education Department — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1885 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1885 (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: 1991 PLP 1885 (SCMR) (THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB, through Secretary, Education Department — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th August, 1988.
- Sheikh Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3-7-1983 in C.R. No.981 of 1983).
Art. 185(3)
Petitioner raised contradictory pleas as on the one hand he asserted that case was of no evidence while on the other hand he alleged misreading of evidence by Courts below
Judgment of Courts below was based on enough evidence on record and if there was no evidence, there was no question of its misreading
No alleged misreading of evidence having been discovered, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal bas been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioner/defendant's Civil Revision, which had arisen out of a decree passed in respondent's favour for damages. His suit was based on assertion regarding damage done to his property which was with the petitioner for running a school. Learned counsel contended that there was not enough evidence on record to show that the building in question suffered any damage and accordingly the respondent was not entitled to recover any compensation as damages‑ After hearing him on this question of fact, we do not agree with him that it was a case of no evidence. The impugned judgment does disclose that there was enough evidence to pass the impugned decree in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel also half‑heartedly raised the question of misreading of evidence. Besides being a contradictory plea if there was no evidence, there was no question of its misreading. We have not been able to discover, any misreading. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. Amounts/deposits in this Court with profits shall be paid to the decree‑holder. H.B.T./P‑112/S Leave to appeal refused.