SCMR 1983

1983 PLP 364 (SCMR)

Mst. LALAN BIBI-Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM ZOHRAN AND OTHERS-Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 22/R of 1982, decided on 10th October 1982:
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1983 PLP 364 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties Mst. LALAN BIBI-Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM ZOHRAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 364 (SCMR)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 364 (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: 1983 PLP 364 (SCMR) (Mst. LALAN BIBI-Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM ZOHRAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 10th October, 1982.
  • Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16-11-1981. passed in R. S. A. No. 180 of 1981). --Art. 185 (3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). S. 100 Concurrent finding of fact-Case standing concluded by concurrent -finding of fact by trial Court and First Appellate Court-High Court on such ground dismissing second appeal of petitioner in limine-Order of High Court upheld and leave to appeal refused. Nemo for-Respondents.

Judgment & Decree

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine on 16‑4‑1982 of his R. S. A., by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone. through the impugned judgment. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned High Court that the case had been concluded by a concurrent finding of fact by the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without merit. Petition dismissed.