1989 PLP 1941(2) (SCMR)
SIRAJ DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SIRAJ DIN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1941(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SIRAJ DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SIRAJ DIN and others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1941(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1941(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1941(2) (SCMR) (SIRAJ DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SIRAJ DIN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 6‑10‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P.No.4805 of 1981) (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑None of the questions of fact urged before Supreme Court was raised before High Court‑‑Petitioner was not permitted to raise such questions of fact before the Supreme Court. (b) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Choice of land‑‑Question of choice of land falls within the realm of the findings of fact and at best propriety or sense of judgment‑‑Order impugned before High Court was not without lawful authority nor suffered from any legal or other infirmity‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Some landowners have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by, the High Court of their Constitutional petition which had arisen out of a case regarding consolidation. The learned counsel for the petitioners repeated the same argument which was advanced at the time of hearing before the High Court; and, an additional ground that the entitlement of the petitioners has been reduced and further that the area near their tube‑well has also been reduced. None of these points was urged before the High Court. In these I circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to permit the learned counsel to raise these questions of fact now before us. In regard to the question of choice of land urged before the High Court, the same also falls within the realm of the findings of fact and at best propriety or sense of judgment. The order impugned before the High Court thus cannot be held to be without lawful authority nor the order suffers from any legal or other infirmity. This petition accordingly is dismissed. MA.K/S‑411/S Petition dismissed.