1987 PLP 756 (SCMR)
AHMED ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ALLAH DAEE and 27 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 756 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AHMED ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ALLAH DAEE and 27 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 756 (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 756 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat 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 756 (SCMR) (AHMED ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ALLAH DAEE and 27 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. R.Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of this Court, dated 10‑11‑1985 passed in Civil Petition No. 1016 of 1980). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI‑‑Review‑ Petitioners seeking review of judgment of Supreme Court on ;round of discovery of an alleged piece of new evidence‑‑Leave to appeal already refused on question regarding acceptance of relevant document in face of concurrent findings of fact recorded in the matter‑‑Contention that such certificate could not have been produced earlier after due diligence, not convincing‑‑Petition for review, found to be without any substance, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI‑‑Review‑ Petitioners seeking review of judgment of Supreme Court on ;round of discovery of an alleged piece of new evidence‑‑Leave to appeal already refused on question regarding acceptance of relevant document in face of concurrent findings of fact recorded in the matter‑‑Contention that such certificate could not have been produced earlier after due diligence, not convincing‑‑Petition for review, found to be without any substance, dismissed. A. R.Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1987. S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The petitioners seek review of our judgment dated 10‑11‑1985 on the ground of discovery of an alleged piece of new evidence, namely, proof in the shape of a certificate received from India showing that Mst. Rabia had died on 21‑4‑1907. In the proceedings; of all the Courts right upto the stage of High Court certificate Exh. D/2 was accepted as good piece of evidence showing that Mst. Rabia had died on 27‑12‑1949. This Court in the circumstances refused to grant leave on the question regarding the acceptance of the said document in the face of concurrent findings of fact recorded in the matter.
2. We are not satisfied with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that such a certificate, if at all genuine, could not have been precured earlier after due deligence when admittedly the proceedings in the case have been pending since 1976. We find no substance in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. S.Q./A‑16/S Petition dismissed