1991 PLP 1351(1) (SCMR)
Haji Syed ABDUL HALEEM SHAH — Petitioner Versus WALI DAD and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1351(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted in view of the fact that Majlis-e -Shoora had found evidence on "Talab-e-Mowasibat" deficient while High Court had found evidence on Talab-e-Ishhad deficient---Petitioner, however, had referred to the evidence on record to establish that there was deficiency in neither.---Pre-emption---Evidence. |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry |
| Parties | Haji Syed ABDUL HALEEM SHAH — Petitioner Versus WALI DAD and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1351(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1351(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted in view of the fact that Majlis-e -Shoora had found evidence on "Talab-e-Mowasibat" deficient while High Court had found evidence on Talab-e-Ishhad deficient---Petitioner, however, had referred to the evidence on record to establish that there was deficiency in neither.---Pre-emption---Evidence. bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1351(1) (SCMR) (Haji Syed ABDUL HALEEM SHAH — Petitioner Versus WALI DAD and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Muhammad Ch. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1990.
- Iftikhar Muhammad Ch. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of High Court of Balochistan Quetta, dated 4-4-1990 passed in Civil Revision No.262 of 1989).
Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted in view of the fact that Majlis-e -Shoora had found evidence on "Talab-e-Mowasibat" deficient while High Court had found evidence on Talab-e-Ishhad deficient
Petitioner, however, had referred to the evidence on record to establish that there was deficiency in neither.
Evidence]. Respondent No.1 (absent). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in view of the fact that Majlis‑e -Shoora had found evidence on "Talab‑e‑Mowasibat" deficient while High Court had found evidence on Talab‑e‑Ishhad deficient‑‑‑Petitioner, however, had referred to the evidence on record to establish that there was deficiency in neither.‑‑‑[Pre‑emption‑‑‑Evidence]. Iftikhar Muhammad Ch. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Respondent No.1 (absent). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1990. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is granted in view of the fact that the Majlis‑e‑Shoora have found evidence on Talab‑e‑Mowasibat deficient while the High Court by the impugned judgment has found evidence on Talab-e-Ishhad deficient. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the evidence on record to establish that there was deficiency in neither. Security Rs. 2,
000. H.B.T./A‑814/S Leave granted.