1989 PLP 1132 (SCMR)
ALIM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD alias DAULA and 4 others=‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1132 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALIM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD alias DAULA and 4 others=‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1132 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1132 (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 1132 (SCMR) (ALIM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD alias DAULA and 4 others=‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Oadir, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 3rd November, 1984 of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.362‑D of 1984). Settlement Scheme No.VII‑‑ ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for possession of a plot of land claimed to have been allotted to plaintiff under the Settlement Scheme No.VII‑‑Concurrent findings of fact, by two higher Courts below‑‑No law or principle had been violated in the impugned judgment and case was not fit for re appraisal of evidence‑‑Leave to appeal refused. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of his suit for possession of a small plot of land claimed to have been allotted to him under the Settlement Scheme No.VII. The dispute between the parties was whether the petitioner was allotted the particular plot (Ahata) claimed by him; namely, 5 Marlas in Khasra No.7492 or it was a different piece of land. Petitioner's suit was initially decreed but the respondents' appeal was allowed and it was held that he was entitled to a plot of about 3 Marlas out of Khasra No.,7432. On petitioner's revision the High Court also examined the merits of the pleas raised from either side and affirmed the appellate judgment, hence, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel on the factual controversy and at his insistence have also examined the record. After hearing him we have not been able to find out any justification for setting aside the concurrent findings of fact by the two higher Courts. It is not a fit case for re‑appraisal of the evidence regarding which no law or principle has been violated in the impugned judgments. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.BA./A‑479/S Leave refused.