1989 PLP 1167 (SCMR)
MADAR BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ AHMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1167 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MADAR BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ AHMAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1167 (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 1167 (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 1167 (SCMR) (MADAR BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ AHMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Shakoor, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 12‑12‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, in Regular Second Appeal No.153 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Concurrent findings of fact on allegation of fraud against petitioner‑‑No cogent point against such findings was canvassed‑‑Petitioner, however, contended that some objections raised from the respondent's side in the written statement were also not established‑‑Held, this point by itself would not make any difference‑‑Burden was on the petitioner to establish assertions made by him in the suit and having failed in that behalf, he could not gain any advantage on account of any technical weakness in the projection of the case from respondent's side.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The petitioner/plaintiff having filed a suit so as to seek annulment of a receipt/agreement executed in favour of the respondent regarding suit property on ground of fraud, he failed before the trial Court. His suit was dismissed. Findings regarding alleged fraud were rendered against him. His first appeal failed and his second appeal having been dismissed by the High Court, he has now sought leave to appeal. Although the learned counsel remained unable to canvass any cogent point against the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the learned lower Courts against the petitioner; he, however, contended that some objections raised from the respondent's side in the written statement were also not established. This point by itself would not make any difference. The burden was on the petitioner to establish assertions made by him in the suit. Having failed in that behalf, be cannot gain any advantage on account of any technical weakness in the projection of the case from the respondent's side. This petition has no force. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.BA./M‑860/S Leave refused.