989 PLP 1281 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Respondent
| Citation | 989 PLP 1281 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Gulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Respondent |
| Primary Law | Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 989 PLP 1281 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 989 PLP 1281 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Gulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 989 PLP 1281 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab: Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 24‑5‑88 in C.R. No.291‑D/85). ‑‑‑Art.72‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Execution of agreement‑ Proof of execution of document‑‑Appellate Court thoroughly dealt with the entire evidence and then came to the conclusion that existence of document was not proved‑‑Appellate Court was fully vested with the jurisdiction to draw inferences of facts from the evidence on record and the inferences so drawn were perfectly justified on record‑‑Appellate Court had not committed any material irregularity and illegality in passing the judgment and decree which called for no interference by High Court under S.115, C.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against order of High Court was refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Siddique filed suit for permanent injunction. It was contested by Muhammad Ramzan. The trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD (2) Whether the suit is bad for non‑joinder of necessary parties? OPD. (3) Whether the plaintiff is tenant under the defendant? If so what is its effect? OPD (4)Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (5) Relief. By judgment, dated 24‑10‑87 the suit was decreed. Muhammad Ramzan filed appeal which was heard by the Add]. District Judge. Appeal was allowed; judgment and decree of the trial Court set aside. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Muhammad Siddique thereafter filed revision in the Lahore High Court. That was dismissed in limine by order dated 24‑5‑
88. He now seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court. The sole point urged before us was about the execution of agreement EX.Pl which according to the learned counsel had been duly proved and accepted by the trial Court. Learned counsel submitted that all the essential legal requirements to prove the said document had been fully complied with. Both the learned High Court as well as the appellate Court erred in law in coming to a contrary conclusion. We are not impressed by the argument because we find that the appellate Court thoroughly dealt with the entire evdence and then came to the conclusion, the respondent has miserably failed to prove the existence of any agreement in favour or that he had paid any sale price to the appellant ...." Similarly the High Court rightly observed, " ....The learned lower appellate Court was fully vested with the jurisdiction to draw inferences of facts from the evidence on record and the inferences drawn by it are perfectly A justifiable from the record ...." It was further observed by the High Court that "the appellate Court has not committed any material irregularity and illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree which calls for no interference under section 115, C.P.C. by this Court." We are not inclined to re‑appraise the evidence at this stage nor have we come across any error of law in the impugned order so as to justify any interference. Dismissed. M.BA./M‑870/S Petition dismissed.