1987 PLP 587 (SCMR)
Mrs. SEEMA AKTHAR and another — ‑Petitioner's Versus AHMED DIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 587 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mrs. SEEMA AKTHAR and another — ‑Petitioner's Versus AHMED DIN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 587 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 587 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 587 (SCMR) (Mrs. SEEMA AKTHAR and another — ‑Petitioner's Versus AHMED DIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Naraindas C. Mohani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ameer Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, at Karachi, dated 9‑12‑1995, in C.R.A. No. 183 of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Co4e (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Revisxonal jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑High Court held justified in refusing to exercise revisional jurisdiction as concurrent findings of both Courts below w' re founded on legitimate conclusions drawn from evidence on record‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Naraindas C. Mohani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ameer Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th May , 1986. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court, dated 9‑12‑1986 dismissing a revision application fled by the petitioners. The dispute between the 3arties relates to a common passage which was agreed upon between t to predecessor of the petitioners and the respondent at the time the property was transferred to them by the Settlement Authorities. We find that the learned Judge in the High Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties rightly refused to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court as the concurrent findings of both the Courts below founded on legitimate conclusions drawn from the evidence on record. We cannot, therefore, find fault with the learned Judge in dismissing toe revision, application. The petition has no force and is dismissed. M.I. /S‑3/S Petition dismissed.