1989 PLP 1124(2) (SCMR)
GHULAM ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus AJMAL SHAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1124(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus AJMAL SHAH and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1124(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1124(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1124(2) (SCMR) (GHULAM ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus AJMAL SHAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mirza Hafizur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
- His learned counsel has contended that the petitioner had not made any offer, and that although the learned Advocate who made the statement before the High Court, was duly appointed by the petitioner also as his counsel, he had no authority to make any such offer on the basis of which the civil revision was disposed of.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 1‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No‑198 of 1978/BWP). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Revision before High Court filed by two real brothers and another petitioner‑‑During the hearing of revision petition one of the two brothers made an offer that "in case respondent stated on Oath of the Holy Quran that mutation of gift did not take place or that respondent's mother did not participate when the mutation was sanctioned, then their revision petition may be dismissed"‑ Statement of one of the brothers and counsel representing all the three petitioners was recorded by the High Court‑‑Respondent accepted the offer and made the proposed oath‑‑Relevant statements were separately recorded and the revision was, accordingly, dismissed‑‑One of the petitioners before the High Court sought leave to appeal against the order of disposal of revision and contended that the petitioner had not made any offer, and that although the counsel who made the statement before the High Court, was duly appointed by turn also as his counsel, he had no authority to make any such offer on the basis of which the revision was disposed of‑‑Petitioner relied upon the contents of the power of attorney submitted in the High Court also‑‑No clash of interest existed between the petitioner and his brother who made the statement before the High Court nor there was any material to indicate that the counsel appearing in the High Court for both the petitioners had any motive to go against the interests of the petitioner‑‑Held, contents of power of attorney did not support the contention of petitioner and position taken by the petitioner in Supreme Court appeared to be an afterthought otherwise an application for review could have been filed before the High Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a suit for declaration in a" property dispute, against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. Two real brothers including the petitioner had filed a civil revision in the High Court. During its hearing one of them namely, Ajmal Shah made an offer that "in case Muhammad Nawaz son of Mst. Bano, deceased respondent, stated on oath of the Holy Qur'an that the mutation of gift did not take place or that Mst. Bano did not participate when the mutation was sanctioned, then their revision petition may be dismissed". This statement of Ajmal Shah and similar statement of the learned counsel representing the petitioners before the High Court was then recorded. Said Muhammad Nawaz accepted the offer and made the proposed oath. Relevant statements were separately recorded and the revision was accordingly, dismissed. Only one of the two petitioners before the High Court has sought leave to appeal. His learned counsel has contended that the petitioner had not made any offer, and that although the learned Advocate who made the statement before the High Court, was duly appointed by the petitioner also as his counsel, he had no authority to make any such offer on the basis of which the civil revision was disposed of. He has relied upon the contents of the power of attorney submitted in the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel, we are satisfied that there was no clash of interest between Ghulam Abbas, the present petitioner, and Ajmal Shah, his brother; who made the statement before the High Court. Nor there is any material to indicate that the learned counsel appearing for both of them in the B High Court had any motive to go against the interests of the petitioner. The position taken by the petitioner in this Court appears to be an afterthought. Otherwise an application for review could have been filed before the High Court. Be that as it may, we have examined the contents of the power of attorney also. It does not support the contention of the learned counsel. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.BA./G‑186/S Petition dismissed.