1990 PLP 445 (SCMR)
AHMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 445 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 445 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 445 (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: 1990 PLP 445 (SCMR) (AHMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhoo, Advocate instructed by Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Shahzad Jehangir, Advocate instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on- Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 21st March, 1985 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No.242 of 1983).
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact on the ground that same were based on misreading of evidence was refused, as there was neither any misreading nor any important piece of evidence had been ignored.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact on the ground that same were based on misreading of evidence was refused, as there was neither any misreading nor any important piece of evidence had been ignored. Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhoo, Advocate instructed by Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Shahzad Jehangir, Advocate instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on- Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 1989. 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. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of an evacuee property measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marlas asserted that the respondents had occupied the same as his licensees. It was further asserted that the respondents had refused to vacate the suit property, therefore the petitioner was compelled to file a suit. On the other hand a suit was also filed from the respondents' side claiming right to and possession of 1 Kanal 6 Marlas of land. It was instituted against the petitioner with a view to establish their right on the same. The petitioner having lost up to the High Court has now sought leave to appeal. The augments raised by the learned counsel related to findings of fact which have been rendered against the petitioner. The contention that they are based on misreading of evidence is without any force as there is neither any misreading nor any important piece of evidence has been ignored. Accordingly, finding no justification for interference, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./A-540/S Leave refused.