1989 PLP 1161 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZUNEERAN BIBI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1161 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZUNEERAN BIBI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1161 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1161 (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: 1989 PLP 1161 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZUNEERAN BIBI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 24th April, 1984 in Civil Revision No.108 D/84/BWP.). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑No noticeable misreading or non‑reading of material evidence found‑‑Petitioner, in addition to the challenge on question of fact, contended that burden of relevant issue was wrongly placed on the petitioner‑‑Petitioner did not complain that he suffered any prejudice because of the burden and that on account of said technical defect, he failed to produce necessary evidence‑‑Technicality regarding burden of proof was of no significance in such a case at leave to appeal granting stage‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J
Petitioner/defendant in a suit for possession and permanent injunction, filed by his sister, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. The petitioner wanted to deprive the respondent of her rightful share in their father's inheritance. He claimed that he was the exclusive owner of the suit property as a donee under an oral gift made by the parties' father. The learned trial Judge decreed the respondent's suit. Her claim was accepted and petitioner's plea was rejected. The trial Court's verdict was upheld in appeal and revision filed by the petitioner. The learned Judge in the High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact particularly when there was no noticeable misreading or non‑reading of material evidence. Learned counsel, in addition to the challenge on questions of fact, has also contended that the burden of relevant issue was wrongly placed on the petitioner. We, after hearing him, are satisfied that the findings of fact do not suffer from any infirmity. The question regarding burden of the issue is also of no help to the petitioner. There is no complaint that he suffered any prejudice in this behalf and that on account of this so‑called technical defect, he failed to produce the necessary evidence. Otherwise too, the technicality regarding burden of proof, in cases, like the present one, is of no significance at this stage. No justification having been made out for interference, leave to appeal is refused. M. B.A./M /849/S Leave refused.