1989 PLP 1746 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and 3 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1746 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and 3 others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1746 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1746 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1746 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and 3 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Iqbal Chaudhree for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 5th November, 1984 of the Lahore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.40 of 198.1). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petitioner filing suit alleging that transaction between parties was one of lease but respondents' side in collusion with the Revenue Authorities got entered and attested a mutation of sale‑‑officer attesting mutation lead appeared and gave evidence against petitioner‑‑Petitioner's counsel was unable to neutralize his testimony which went against petitioner's version‑‑Held, no justification for interference with the findings of fact on the vital question of fraud was found‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Regular Second Appeal, which had arisen out of the failure of his suit for declaration to the effect that a sale by him in favour of respondents' side was void on account of fraud. Learned counsel has explained that the transaction between the parties was one of lease but the respondents' side in collusion with the Revenue Authorities got entered and attested a mutation of sale. Accordingly suit for declaration was riled. With regard to the delay the petitioner has, in addition to the merits, also failed on the question of limitation, he has contended that he was kept unaware of the entries in the Revenue Record for nearly 10 years. Both these points were raised before the High Court but without any success. On merits it was then urged that although sufficient evidence was produced by the appellant before the trial Court but the same was misread and inferences adverse to the interest of the petitioner, were drawn. Same argument has been reiterated before us. Learned Judge in the High Court while examining the case on merits observed that he having carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel, was unable to find any error in the concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below. We also heard the learned counsel on the question of misreading of evidence and asked him whether the Officer attesting the mutation having appeared against the petitioner, he would be able to neutralize his testimony which goes against petitioner's version. In reply learned counsel criticized the evidence in this behalf. After hearing him, we do not find any justification for interference with the findings of fact on the vital question of fraud which go against the petitioner. That being so, he would also lose on the, question of limitation. Looked at from whatever angle, there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./N‑152/S Leave refused.