1998 PLP 665 (SCMR)
MAULA BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 665 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ |
| Parties | MAULA BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 665 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 665 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 665 (SCMR) (MAULA BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th January, 1998
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below set aside by High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether High Court was justified in disturbing concurrent findings of two Courts below as well as of Revenue Court in exercise of its ‑revisional jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below set aside by High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether High Court was justified in disturbing concurrent findings of two Courts below as well as of Revenue Court in exercise of its ‑revisional jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1998 Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the High Court was justified in disturbing concurrent findings of the Trial Courts below as well as the Revenue Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A,A./M‑83/S Leave granted