1990 PLP 265 (SCMR)
SARDARA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHANQAH PIR SHAH BADSHAH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 265 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SARDARA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHANQAH PIR SHAH BADSHAH‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 265 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 265 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 265 (SCMR) (SARDARA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHANQAH PIR SHAH BADSHAH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh, Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 31st January, 1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 41/D of 1989). ‑‑‑Art.144‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Adverse possession‑‑ Petitioner failed to establish his plea of adverse possession throughout‑‑‑Supreme Court, after examining entries in Jamabandi found that entries did not advance case of the petitioner‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Date of bearing: 14th May, 1989.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.144‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Adverse possession‑‑ Petitioner failed to establish his plea of adverse possession throughout‑‑‑Supreme Court, after examining entries in Jamabandi found that entries did not advance case of the petitioner‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Sh, Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of bearing: 14th May, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The only question for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal is whether the petitioners have been able to establish their plea of adverse possession. The trial Court as well as the District Judge rejected this plea and the High Court in revisional jurisdiction affirmed their findings in this regard. In support of this petition, learned counsel has referred us to the relevant Jamabandi. After examining the entries therein we do not find that they advance the case of the petitioner. Leave is refused. MA.K./S‑441/S Leave refused: