1989 PLP 1620 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1620 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution or Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1620 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution or Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1620 (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 1620 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Anayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 24th February, 1985 of the Lahore High Court. Multan Bench, in Civil Revision No.690 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Tamleek‑‑Execution challenged‑‑Evidence‑‑Petitioner failed to point out any such circumstances which might lead to supposition that the lower Courts committed any substantial error of law or principle in the appraisal of the material regarding the Tamleek‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Anayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th March, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the respondent, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. The respondent had challenged a Tamleek alleged to have been made b4 her in favour of the petitioner who is her paternal cousin. The suit was decreed. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed for the reason of deficiency of court‑fee. His Regular First Appeal, however; was accepted by the High Court and the case, was remanded to the District .fudge who again dismissed the appeal both on the ground of failure of the petitioner to make up tire deficiency within time granted by the Court as also on merits. The petitioner again approached the High Court in the second round. After careful examination of the reasoning which prevailed with the learned lower Court, the High Court came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for its interference on merits as the findings of fact were un‑exceptionable. We asked the learned counsel whether there are any such circumstances which might lead to supposition that (lie learned lower Courts committed any substantial error of law or principle in the appraisal of the material regarding the Tamleek alleged to have been made in favour of the petitioner by the respondent but he has not been able to point out any such error. Accordingly, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./M‑834/S Leave refused.