1994 PLP 1130 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF N: W.F‑P. through Secretary, Food Department, Peshawar and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS KHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1130 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saeeduzzmnan Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF N: W.F‑P. through Secretary, Food Department, Peshawar and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS KHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1130 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1130 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saeeduzzmnan Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1130 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF N: W.F‑P. through Secretary, Food Department, Peshawar and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS KHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Azam Khan, Addl. A.G., N.W.F: P. for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 26‑5‑1992 in R.FA. No.9 of 1985). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Appraisal of evidence‑‑‑Two Courts below had appraised evidence in true perspective‑‑‑Reappraisal of evidence was not called for on any ground‑‑‑No point of law was involved in petition for leave to appeal‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. JUDGMENT
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J ‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 26‑5‑1992 seeking leave to appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents brought a suit for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.4,83,600 against the petitioners on the allegation that the bungalow which was on rent with the petitioners, had been totally burnt. The petitioners had not looked after the bungalow properly and for the negligent act of the petitioners, the bungalow caught fire, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay the amount of damages. The suit was resisted by the petitioners. The learned trial Judge granted a decree for Rs.1,92,000 against the petitioners. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the High Court by means of impugned judgment. The petitioners were tenants in the bungalow in question and an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller and that order was maintained by the Appellate Court. The petitioners did not hand over the possession to the respondents. They had to file execution proceedings on 15‑4‑1978 and according to the report of the Bailiff the bungalow was damaged and the building was burnt due to the negligence of the petitioners. D.W.1 appeared on behalf of the petitioners and admitted that the building caught fire but it was not known as to who had set the building on fire. The two Courts have appraised the evidence in true perspective. Re‑appraisal of evidence is not called for on any ground.
3. No point of law is involved in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./G‑423/S Leave refused.