1994 PLP 1775 (SCMR)
GHULAM SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AISHA and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents.
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1775 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | GHULAM SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AISHA and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1775 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1775 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1775 (SCMR) (GHULAM SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AISHA and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of Peshawar High Court dated 5‑11‑1991 in Civil Revision No. 415 of 1989) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact of three Courts below ‑‑‑Effect‑‑ No justification was pointed out to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact and no law, point was involved therein‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 5‑11‑1991 passed in Civil Revision No. 415 of 1988.
2. Relevant facts are that the respondents' suit for a declaration that they were entitled to 1/4th share in he land in dispute was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Daggar on 30‑6‑1987 and the petitioners' appeal against the said decree was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Swat on 3‑5‑1988. Petitioners filed the abovenoted Civil Revision in the Peshawar High Court which was dismissed on 5‑11‑1991. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel contested the findings of facts by the three Courts below. There is no justification to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact. There is no law point involved: The petition is dismissed. AA./G‑430/S Leave refused.