1981 PLP 1400 (CLC)
GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mir Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1400 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zafar Hussain Mirza, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mir Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1400 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1400 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zafar Hussain Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1400 (CLC) (GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mir Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Saeed for Petitioners.
- Maroof Ali Khan for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Art. 199‑Jurisdiction‑Question of facts, held, not open to challenge in constitutional jurisdiction.‑[Question of fact]. It is well‑settled that in the extraordinary jurisdiction the High Court cannot review findings of fact arrived at by lower Tribunal as a Court of Appeal unless it is shown that the finding was not supported by any evidence at all or where such finding was arrived at by ignoring evidence on record. That High Court may take a different view of the evidence on record is no ground for interference with the finding of lower Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Constitutional Petition No. 544 of 1974, decided on 2nd April, 1980. ‑‑ Art. 199‑Jurisdiction‑Question of facts, held, not open to challenge in constitutional jurisdiction.‑[Question of fact]. It is well‑settled that in the extraordinary jurisdiction the High Court cannot review findings of fact arrived at by lower Tribunal as a Court of Appeal unless it is shown that the finding was not supported by any evidence at all or where such finding was arrived at by ignoring evidence on record. That High Court may take a different view of the evidence on record is no ground for interference with the finding of lower Tribunal. Malik Muhammad Saeed for Petitioners. Maroof Ali Khan for Respondent No.