1994 PLP 1791 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI through L.Rs. and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KHALID and 17 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1791 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI through L.Rs. and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KHALID and 17 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1791 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1791 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1791 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI through L.Rs. and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KHALID and 17 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Dilawar Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court, Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1‑7‑1992 in Civil Revision No. 1689‑D of 1982). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by Courts below‑‑‑Scope of interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Sale of land in. question, and execution of power of attorney by the alleged vendor‑‑‑Courts below had concurrently decided such questions in the negative‑‑‑High Court in revisional jurisdiction did not find any basis‑for interfering with the concurrent findings of Courts below‑‑‑No case was made out for interference with concurrent finding of fact by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑Two questions of fact need consideration before us. These questions are: (1) If Dost Muhammad Khan had executed a power of attorney in favour of Abdul Hameedy and, (2) Whether Dost Muhammad had during the pendency of the suit sold the land to Munawar Khan, brother of the aforementioned Abdul Hameed. The trial Court and the first appellate Court after appraising the evidence oil the record concurrently decided both the questions in the negative, holding that Dost Muhammad was an old man, mentally infirm and mentally not in a position to enter into the transactions in question. The High Court in the revisional jurisdiction did not find any basis for interfering with the concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts. We are not persuaded that any case for interference with the said findings by this Court has been made out. Leave to appeal is refused. AA./A‑1099/S Leave refused.