1985 PLP 1372 (SCMR)
SHARIF AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1372 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SHARIF AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1372 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1372 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1372 (SCMR) (SHARIF AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑12‑1979 in W.P. No. 8003 of 1979). ‑‑-Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Complicated questions of law and facts requiring evidence‑‑High Court declined to adjudicate‑ Petitioner rightly advised to seek remedy before a Court of general jurisdiction ‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1985. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Sharif Ahmad, petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑12‑1979, dismissing his Writ Petition (No. 8003 of 1979). We have heard the petitioner's counsel and gone through the impugned judgment. The matter involves a question of inheritance, which was first agitated by the petitioner before the Revenue Authorities including Member, Board of Revenue. Not feeling satisfied with the order of M.B.R., the petitioners moved the High Court, through a constitutional petition, which was, however, dismissed with the following observations:‑ "Complicated question of law and facts are involved in this case which require evidence as to whether the deceased embraced Islam and who are his heirs. The proper forum is the civil Court. The petitioner, if advised, may seek remedy in that forum. With this observation this writ petition is disposed of." After hearing the petitioner's counsel, perusing the impugned judgment and considering the matter in its entirety, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the abovenoted view expressed by the High Court, whereby the petitioner has been advised to seek his remedy before a Court of general jurisdiction. The matter does not, therefore need interference by this Court. The petition is consequently dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.