1989SCMR605 (PLP)
ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR605 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Suit for Partition |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR605 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Suit for Partition as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR605 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR605 (PLP) (ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Younis, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988.
- M. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Younis, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 23-11-1983, in C.R. No.168 of 1982).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Plea that Thara in front of shop was not partible and that petitioner had got lesser share of Thara than his entitlement--Site plan showed that failure to partition of Thara would have rendered partition of the shop to the extent of respondents' share, unpractical- Without an opening and approach provided by the Thara , respondent could not have utilised his part of the divided shop--Petitioner's plea that nothing could be constructed upon the Thara did not affect the partition--Petitioner's plea regarding lesser share of Thara was not taken before High Court and same needed inquiry into facts--No justification was found to interfere with impugned judgment of High Court--Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
M. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Younis, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant in a suit for partition of a shop, against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The dispute now relates only to the division of a Thara in front of the shop which stands partitioned. Learned counsel contended: firstly, that the Thara was not partible; and secondly that more than one‑third share of the Thara has been given to the respondent side. Although there was no legal impediment in so far as the partition of the Thara, is concerned; but, after having seen the site plan produced by the learned counsel we feel that the failure to partition the Thara I (described in the plaint as platform), would have rendered the partition of the ' shop to the extent of the respondent's share, unpractical. Without an opening and approach provided by the disputed Thara, the respondent could not have utilised his part of the divided shop. The plea that under the rules nothing could be constructed upon the platform is a separate matter altogether. It does not affect the partition. If no construction on the platform, is permissible by any law, it might have its own course. The first contention, therefore, fails. The plea regarding lesser share of the platform was not taken before the High Court. It needs inquiry into facts. After some hearing on this point also we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. Leave to I appeal is, therefore, refused. A.A./A‑390/S Leave to appeal refused.