1987 PLP 1517 (SCMR)
REHM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus RIZWAN HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1517 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | REHM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus RIZWAN HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1517 (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 1517 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal 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 1517 (SCMR) (REHM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus RIZWAN HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from‑ the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4‑3‑1980 in W.P. No. 1588 of 1976). ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.22‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Deposit of Zar‑i‑Panjum‑‑ Misreading of date of such deposit by Courts‑‑Effect‑‑High Court reversed findings of Courts below holding that such Courts have misread receipt whereby Zar‑i‑Panjum was deposited on specified date and not on such date as held by such Courts‑‑Petitioner failed to point out that finding of High Court suffered from any infirmity‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave to appeal the High Court has found that the District Judge and the trial Court misread the receipt Exh.A‑1 in coming to the conclusion that the zar‑i‑punjam was deposited on 13‑7‑1967 and not on 12‑7‑1967. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to show that this finding suffers from any infirmity. In the circumstances we do not think this is a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./R‑18/S Petition dismissed.