1988 PLP 45 (SCMR)
ALI SHER — Petitioner Versus Mst. BILQEES BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 45 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ALI SHER — Petitioner Versus Mst. BILQEES BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 45 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 45 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 45 (SCMR) (ALI SHER — Petitioner Versus Mst. BILQEES BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ataullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. 288/82, dated 1-7-1985).
S. 100--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Second appeal--Jurisdiction of High Court--Concurrent findings on question of fact--Setting aside of--Reappraisal of evidence--High Court upsetting concurrent findings of two Courts below--Observation made amounting to re-appraisal of evidence on question of fact--Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that under a very limited scope, concurrent findings of Courts below could not be set aside because these were based on proper reading of evidence and there was no legal infirmity in judgments of two Courts below; and that findings of High Court were based on misreading of evidence on record.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 1-7-1985 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 288 of 1982, upsetting the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below on the ground that the learned High Court Judge has got no jurisdiction to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court on issues Nos. 4 and 4-A inasmuch as under a very limited scope the concurrent findings of the Courts below could not be set aside because these were based on proper reading of evidence and there was no legal infirmity in the judgments of the two Courts below; and that the findings of the learned High Court Judge in upsetting the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the aforesaid two issues, are entirely based on misreading of evidence on record.
2. Ali Sher petitioner brought a suit for possession of land measuring 28 Kanals 4 Marlas situate in Chak No. 292/R.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad, claiming that the alleged oral gift by him in favour of respondent Mst. Bilqees Begum through the alleged mutation No. 374 dated 11-6-1974, is fictitious, forged, based on fraud and is illegal. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court holding under issues Nos. 4 and 4-A that no valid gift was made and that mutation No. 374 was fictitious, forged, based on fraud, mala fide with the connivance of the revenue staff. On appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court on the said issues per judgment dated 4-10-1982. Both the judgments are rich with detail of facts.
3. We are of the view that the learned High Court Judge has upset the findings on the aforesaid issues on certain observation made which amounts to re-appraisal of the evidence on question of facts. Therefore, we grant leave to consider, inter alia, the contentions raised by the learned counsel. Security rupees two thousand. Appeal to heard on the present record, with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if desired. M.I./A-112/S Leave granted.