1989 PLP 1657 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1657 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1657 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1657 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1657 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑12‑1983 in C. R. No.352/D of 1983). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Landlord and tenant‑‑Contention that according to admission made by the respondents that the petitioner was their tenant, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit notwithstanding the petitioner's plea that he was not a tenant and that he was in fact an owner through purchase‑‑Petitioner on being asked to accept his position as a tenant stated that it was not his case that he was a tenant and if the leave was to be granted it should be on the basis of statement in that behalf by the respondents‑‑Petitioner, held, could not be permitted to take inconsistent and self‑contradictory pleas‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is defendant's petition for ]cave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. It has arisen out of a declaratory decree passed in favour of tile respondents side regarding title to the suit property. The trial Court had dismissed the suit but their appeal having succeeded, the petitioner's challenge against the appellate judgment and decree, having filed before the High Court in Its Revision jurisdiction, he has now sought like to appeal. Learned counsel vehemently contended that according to the admission made from the respondents side that the petitioner was their tenant, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try tile suit, notwithstanding the petitioner's pica that he was not a tenant and that he was in fact an owner through purchase. When questioned whether the petitioner now accepts the position as a tenant so that if he succeeds in this Court and the case is to be tried by the competent forum, this controversy regarding the petitioner being a tenant should stand concluded, he replied that it is not the petitioner's case that he is a tenant. If the leave is to bet granted it should be granted on the statement in that behalf made by the plaintiff side during the trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel, we in this discretionary jurisdiction to grant or withhold (cave to appeal, would not in the circumstances of the case, permit the petitioner to take inconsistent and self‑contradictory pleas. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused, as it is not a fit case for the grant thereof. M.A.K./M‑845/S Leave refused.