1988 PLP 1800(2) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. GULLAI — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1800(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. GULLAI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V oaf 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1800(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V oaf 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1800(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1800(2) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. GULLAI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-6-1981 in Civil Revision No.704/D of 1981).
S.115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Concurrent finding of fact--Interference with revisional jurisdiction of High Court-- Decree passed with petitioner's consent, challenged by him as having been obtained by fraud--Having failed in High Court sought leave to appeal--Matter. stood concluded by finding of fact against petitioner--Jurisdictional point raised before High Court having been dealt with properly and no legal infirmity in impugned judgment being pointed out, no justification was made out for interference--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court. He had challenged a decree which was passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner by the latter's consent, as having been obtained by fraud. His suit was dismissed. His appeal was also dismissed. He having failed in the High Court, has now sought leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that the matter stands concluded by the findings of fact against the petitioner. Learned counsel was unable to show any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. It needs to be mentioned that a so‑called jurisdictional point raised before the High Court, was also dealt with properly. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.I. /M‑526/S Petition dismissed.