1988 PLP 234 (SCMR)
FAIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. ALLAH WASAI — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 234 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. ALLAH WASAI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 234 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 234 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 234 (SCMR) (FAIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. ALLAH WASAI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 9-6-1980 of the Lahore High Court Civil Revision No.896/80). --S. 115 Constitution of Pakistan (1973) , Art. 185(3) Leave to appeal grant of--Concurrent findings of fact--No infirmity--Interference with-Findings of fact of Trial court maintained in appeal and revision--Supreme Court declined to interfere holding that petition tad concluded by findings of facts recorded by First Appellate Court which were unexceptionable--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .--The respondent was married to the petitioner. There was no issue of the marriage. By a registered P sale-deed dated 18-5-1976, she sold her land to the petitioner for a same of Rs.1,00,
000. On 27-10-1976 she filed a civil suit challenging such he validity of the sale-deed on the grounds that it had been obtained from her through coercion and that no consideration had been paid to her. The trial court decreed her suit. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District judge. The learned District judge maintained the finding of the trial Court that no consideration had been paid to the respondent but held that it was not a case of coercion dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High court but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. This petition stands concluded by findings of facts recorded by the subordinate Court and we are not satisfied that these findings suffer from any infirmity. Leave is accordingly refused. M.I./F-28/S Petition dismissed.