1988 PLP 1337 (SCMR)
MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. KANEEZ BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1337 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, J, |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. KANEEZ BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1337 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1337 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, J,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1337 (SCMR) (MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. KANEEZ BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988.
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 21-3-1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.R. No.461-D/1983).
Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal--Question raised related to concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner--Judgment of High Court not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise justifying interference by Supreme Court--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the husband in a family matter against order dated 21‑3‑1988 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the petitioner's Civil Revision was dismissed.
2. The respondent /plaintiff filed suit for recovery of dowry articles or their equivalent in money value, which was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed. His revision also met the same fate. Therefore, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. The learned counsel has tried to show firstly, that the decree has been passed against the petitioner on account of misunderstanding about the correct position regarding return of the dowry articles and secondly, that the statement of the father of the petitioner has been utilized against him, notwithstanding the fact that he (the father) was in the position of an interested witness against the petitioner; because the latter's mother having been divorced by the former, there was ill‑will between both.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. Although he has put in considerable labour, yet the questions raised by him relate to the concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise, justifying interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./M‑463/S Petition dismissed.