1987 PLP 843 (SCMR)
Mst. REHMAT BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and others Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 843 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. REHMAT BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 843 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 843 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 843 (SCMR) (Mst. REHMAT BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑ Record. for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1987. .
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 2‑8‑1986 in R.S.A. No. 390 of 1966). ‑‑‑S. 100‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Second appeal‑ Question of fact‑‑Question for consideration before Courts was one of fact, that is, whether petitioner had been married in 1936 or not‑‑Trial Court's affirmative decision reversed by District Judge‑‑High Court, after re‑appraising evidence, restoring finding of Trial Court‑‑Contention that it was not open to High Court to reverse a finding on a question of fact in second appeal‑‑District Judge found not to have given due weight to evidence and to have ignored circumstances which had an important bearing on question in issue‑‑High Court, held, was competent, in circumstances, to reverse finding of District Judge‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ This petition for special leave to appeal is from the judgment and decree dated 2‑8‑1986 of the Lahore High Court which reversed the judgment and decree dated 12‑1‑1966 of the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and restored those of the trial Court. 2.The only question for consideration before the Courts was one of fact, that is, whether the petitioner had been married in 1936 or not. The learned trial Court decided this question in the affirmative but the learned Additional District Judge reversed this finding and returned the answer in the negative. After reappraising the evidence al learned Single Judge in the High Court upset the, finding of the learned Additional District Judge and restored that of the learned trial Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that it was not open the High Court to reverse a finding on a question of fact in a second appeal. This is no doubt the position ordinarily. However, we find that the learned Additional District Judge did not give due weight to the mutation which was sanctioned on 15‑7‑1936 and ignored circumstances which had an important bearing on the question in issue. By the aforementioned mutation the property which the petitioner was holding under the custom was mutated in favour of the collaterals on the ground that she had since been married. This mutation was attested in the presence of the local Lambardar. It was never challenged by the petitioner. In fact she waited for quarter of a century before bringing her suit. In the circumstances the learned Single Judge was competent to reverse the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. S.Q./R‑10/S Petition dismissed.