SCMR 1986

1986 PLP 477(1) (SCMR)

ABDUL RAUF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Miscellaneous No. 112‑P of 1985 in ‑Civil Appeal No. 14‑P of 1985, decided on 27th October, 1985.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 477(1) (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Parties ABDUL RAUF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 477(1) (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 477(1) (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 477(1) (SCMR) (ABDUL RAUF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

Representation

  • Tariq Jamal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • A. Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
  • ZAFIIAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑In the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner prays for maintaining status quo as to possession of the disputed land. But the learned Advocate‑on‑ Record for the respondent has prima facie established through documents that the possession had already been taken over through execution proceedings. Accordingly we do not see any justification to grant interim status quo. Accordingly, the C.M.P. is dismissed.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Possession‑‑Application on behalf' of appellant for maintaining status quo as to possession of disputed land‑‑Respondent prima facie establishing through documents that possession had already been taken over through execution proceedings‑‑Application dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

ZAFIIAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑In the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner prays for maintaining status quo as to possession of the disputed land. But the learned Advocate‑on‑ Record for the respondent has prima facie established through documents that the possession had already been taken over through execution proceedings. Accordingly we do not see any justification to grant interim status quo. Accordingly, the C.M.P. is dismissed. M . Y . H Petition dismissed