1985 PLP 574 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM IQBAL and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 574 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM IQBAL and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 574 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 574 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 574 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM IQBAL and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 7th November 1984.
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10-3-1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 432 of 1981) . Abdur Rehman Bajwa's case P L D 1981 S C 522.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑3‑1984, dismissing his writ petition in a rent matter.
2. We have heard the petitioners' counsel and gone through the impugned judgment. It is evident from the observations in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment that before the High Court the petitioners' counsel had only urged that evidence in the case be reappraised and findings of fact on issues Nos. 5 and 6 be reversed. It is, therefore, obvious that in view of the observations by this Court in Abdur Rehman Bajwa's case PLD 1981 SC 522 the petition was incompetent. But even the learned High Court reconsidered the whole matter and dismissed the writ petition on merits. In view of the above‑mentioned circumstances we do not consider it a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is consequently refused. M.I. Leave refused.