1989 PLP 1123 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUQADDAS BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1123 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUQADDAS BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1123 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1123 (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 1123 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUQADDAS BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ejaz mad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑5‑1983 in C.R. 1628 of 1982). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.9‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for possession through partition‑‑Petitioners were unable to produce any reliable and cogent evidence so as to hold that the title of the respondents challenged by the petitioners was not established‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The plaintiffs side have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision which had arisen out of a suit for possession through partition. Learned counsel raised some technical points in support of this petition; but when questioned whether there was any reliable and cogent evidence, so as to hold that the title of the respondents side challenged by the petitioners was not established, he remained unable to rely on anything worth mentioning. The petitioners having a weak case in this behalf, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. M.BA./M‑813/S Leave refused.