1989 PLP 1774 (SCMR)
Messrs TOOTI TANNERIES LTD. Petitioner Versus SARDAR RAZA ALI KHAN and 5 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1774 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs TOOTI TANNERIES LTD. Petitioner Versus SARDAR RAZA ALI KHAN and 5 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1774 (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 1774 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1774 (SCMR) (Messrs TOOTI TANNERIES LTD. Petitioner Versus SARDAR RAZA ALI KHAN and 5 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on- Reeord for Petitioner.
- S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Peshawar High Court dated 23‑11‑1988, in Writ Petition No. 537 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Finding of fact‑‑High Court held detailed inquiry with the consent of both the parties for rendering findings of fact‑‑Findings by High Court so reached did not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The decision of the High Court in its writ jurisdiction to a settlement matter involving two serious factual controversies‑‑one relating to the identity of the disputed property and the other to its availability for transfer, has been challenged on two grounds: (a), that the High Court should not have held the detailed inquiry for rendering findings of fact in its writ jurisdiction; and (b) that the findings are incorrect, on both aforestated questions. After hearing both the learned counsel at length we are satisfied that the High Court held the detailed inquiry with the consent of both the parties. On the second question we are satisfied that the findings by the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity of law `or principle. This petition for leave to appeal, accordingly, is dismissed M.A.K./T‑41 /S Leave refused.