1987 PLP 1545 (SCMR)
Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1545 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1545 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1545 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1545 (SCMR) (Mst. KHURSHID BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1987.
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for‑ Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑12‑1984 in Civil Revision No. 1700‑D of 1980). ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Concurrent finding of fact‑‑Interference with‑‑High Court in revisional jurisdiction declining to interfere with concurrent finding of fact‑‑No infirmity in finding of lower. Courts having been pointed out, leave to appeal refused. Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for‑ Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.
By a sale deed dated 8-8-1970 the petitioner sold a portion of her, house to the respondent. The question for consideration in this petition is whether the area of the portion sold by the petitioner was less than what was actually recited in the sale deed. The trial Court as well as the Additional District Judge decided this question against the petitioner and the High Court; in revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere with the finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the finding of the subordinate Courts on the question suffers from any infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I./K‑18/S Petition dismissed.