1989 PLP 1227 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1227 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific performance‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1227 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific performance‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1227 (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 1227 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 30‑4‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revisions Nos.866‑D and 865‑D of 1985, respectively).
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal. They arise out of two suits filed by the petitioner for the specific performance of an agreement of sale of agricultural land. These were decreed in his favour on the basis of the Special Oath taken by him. While awarding the decree, the trial Court did not allow costs of the suits. He filed appeals and revision petitions before the Additional District Judge and the High Court to pursue his claim for costs but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. With these petitions the petitioner has not attached copies of judgments of the trial Court or of the Additional District Judge. He has also not cared to place on record the statements of parties whereby they agreed to get the suits decided on the basis of the Special Oath. However that may be, after hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the judgments of the subordinate Courts has been made out. These petitions are dismissed. M.BA./M‑894/S Petitions dismissed.