1989 PLP 1133 (SCMR)
ALI HAIDER SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZUR MEHDI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1133 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ALI HAIDER SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZUR MEHDI and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1133 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1133 (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: 1989 PLP 1133 (SCMR) (ALI HAIDER SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZUR MEHDI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Talib Haider Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑4‑1983 passed in Civil Revision No.152‑D of 1982). Gift‑. ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petitioner challenged on merits and technical grounds gifts made by him m favour of his son and grandson‑ Petitioner's suit, appeal and revision dismissed‑‑Courts below found against the petitioner on merits holding that petitioner did make gifts in dispute in favour of his own son and grand' if there was some technical or procedural defect, Supreme Court refused to grant leave, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a declaratory suit regarding his challenge to the gift made by him in favour of the respondents' side. The suit was dismissed. Petitioner's appeal failed and his civil revision having been dismissed by the High Court, leave to appeal has now been sought. The points urged in this petition are divided into two categories; one on merits and the other technical. All the Courts below have held against the petitioner on merits. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court in that behalf. It having been held that the petitioner did make the gift/s in dispute in favour of his own son and grandson, even if there is some technical or procedural defect, we would not grant leave to appeal in this case, in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.B‑A./A‑464/S Leave refused.