1989 PLP 1487 (SCMR)
SHER JANG KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus FATEH KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1487 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SHER JANG KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus FATEH KHAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1487 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1487 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1487 (SCMR) (SHER JANG KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus FATEH KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Rafiq Butt, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent:
- Date of hearing: 5th September,1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑3‑1984 in C.R. No.474/D of 1983) ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for permanent injunction relating to right of way (path)‑‑Suit was decreed on the basis of findings of fact against petitioners‑‑Appeal of petitioners was dismissed on merits‑‑High Court also dismissed revision on examination of the merits as also on the ground that concurrent findings of the Courts below were not liable to be set aside in revision and that there was no misreading or non‑reading of the evidence‑‑No new point was argued before the Supreme Court by the petitioners‑‑Leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for permanent injunction relating to right of way (path)‑‑Suit was decreed on the basis of findings of fact against petitioners‑‑Appeal of petitioners was dismissed on merits‑‑High Court also dismissed revision on examination of the merits as also on the ground that concurrent findings of the Courts below were not liable to be set aside in revision and that there was no misreading or non‑reading of the evidence‑‑No new point was argued before the Supreme Court by the petitioners‑‑Leave was refused. M. Rafiq Butt, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent: Date of hearing: 5th September,1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side in a suit for permanent injunction relating to right of way (path), against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The suit of the respondent was decreed on the basis of findings of fact against the petitioners. Their appeal was dismissed on merits. Their revision was also dismissed by the High Court on examination of the merits as also on the ground that the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below were not liable to be set aside in revision and further that there was no misreading or non‑ reading of the evidence. .Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated all those points of facts sand merits which stand concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below. It is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. M.B.A./S‑285/S Petition dismissed.