1994SCMR2041 (PLP)
Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mistry SIRAJ DIN and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994SCMR2041 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mistry SIRAJ DIN and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR2041 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR2041 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR2041 (PLP) (Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mistry SIRAJ DIN and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- SA. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.3 to 9.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 27‑5‑1992 passed in R.SA. No. 74/1991). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent finding of fact by Courts below‑‑‑Such finding could not be disturbed nor any valid ground for interference was made out‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 27‑5‑1992 passed in R.SA. No. 74/1991). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent finding of fact by Courts below‑‑‑Such finding could not be disturbed nor any valid ground for interference was made out‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. SA. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.3 to
9. Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the regular second appeal filed by him was dismissed.
2. The ‑background of this case is a chequered one. The respondents predecessor‑in‑interest had filed application for ejectment of the petitioner who had taken the defence that the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest had agreed to sell the disputed property through her attorney. Even a suit for specific performance of the agreement had been filed by the petitioner. However, all the Courts have found that the agreement was forged and rejected the plea of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the attorney of the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest had admitted the execution of the agreement and in this regard made reference to a photo copy of the statement alleged to have been made by the said attorney in a suit for specific performance. The petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the statement of the attorney recorded in the ejectment case. Even in the statement of Siraj Din referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which was made in the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner, no admission has been made that he had executed an agreement for sale of the property on behalf of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. His plea was that his signature had been traced fraudulently and the contents of the agreement are false and forged. There is a concurrent finding of fact by all the Courts below which cannot be disturbed nor any valid ground for interference has been made out. We refuse to grant leave. A.A./M‑1950/S Leave refused.