1983 PLP 59 (SCMR)
HAMAYAT KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus AHMED DIN AND 2 Others-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 59 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | HAMAYAT KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus AHMED DIN AND 2 Others-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 59 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 59 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 59 (SCMR) (HAMAYAT KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus AHMED DIN AND 2 Others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmd Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 29th May, 1982.
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmd Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18-1-1982, passed in Writ Petition No. 7366/80). -- Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-District Judge having jurisdiction to decide question and such decision attaining finality nevertheless High Court entertaining writ petition against such order and dismissing same through a well reasoned judgment-Leave to appeal petition, in circumstances, held, misconceived and dismissed-Court observa tion: Practice unfortunately has arisen to challenge decisions of Courts through constitutional petitions on frivolous grounds requiring re appraisal of evidence when none envisaged by law.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly; that Sardar Ahmad (petitioner No. 2) purchased 30 Kanals of land from Rehmat Ali, which he subsequently sold to Hayat Khan. Rehmat Al: brought a suit against them for declaration to the effect that he had not made any sale in favour of Sardar Ahmad (petitioner No. 2). The said Rehmat Ali died during the pendency of the suit. An application was moved to implead respondents (Nos. 1 to 3) as legal representatives of Rehmat Ali. This was allowed by the trial Court. This order was, however, challenged by the petitioner through a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which was dismissed on 25‑5‑1980 on the ground that it did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Against this order the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had omitted to consider material portions of the evidence. Admittedly, the learned Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction toy decide this question and his decision attained finality. Unfortunately, a practice has arisen to challenge decisions of Courts of law through constitutional petitions, on frivolous grounds, requiring reappraisal of evidence when none is envisaged by the relevant law. We find that the learned Judge in Chamber has rightly dismissed the petition though a well reasoned judgment notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition was, in fact, not maintainable. This petition, too, is misconceived and is dismissed as having no merit. Petition dismissed.