1985 PLP 539 (SCMR)
FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 539 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 539 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 539 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 539 (SCMR) (FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 29‑11‑1980 in Review Petition No.154 of 1980). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Transfer of property‑‑High Court refusing to interfere with division of property in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑No law or any principle having been contravened, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 29‑11‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby review application filed by the petitioner which had arisen out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed. The portion in dispute it seems was, at some stage of protracted litigation between the contesting parties, transferred in favour of the petitioner in accordance with one mode of division. However, subsequently notwithstanding the separate numbering of the component units of the same property it was treated as one building and then transferred after making a division with reference to main numbers i.e., 605 and
606. The petitioner is the transferee of, it is stated a substantial part of the building. Not feeling satisfied upto the High Court which refused to interfere with the division of the property, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel has taken us through the relevant documents including the site plan which he considered to be more authentic. After hearing him at some length, we agree with the High Court that the division of the property could not be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction. No law or any principle having been' contravened, we find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.