1986 PLP 1672 (SCMR)
Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Petitioners Versus WADHO AKHARO TRUST — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1672 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Petitioners Versus WADHO AKHARO TRUST — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution at Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1672 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution at Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1672 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1672 (SCMR) (Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Petitioners Versus WADHO AKHARO TRUST — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1986.
- Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 10-12-1984 in C . R . A. No. 189 of 1982) .
Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Order of High Court refusing to exercise revisional jurisdiction unexceptionable in law and on facts--Leave to appeal against such order refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR. SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court, dated 10‑12‑1984 dismissing a revision application filed by the petitioners whereby they challenged judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which was upheld on appeal by the District Judge, Thatta. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the appeal was find that no exception in law or on facts can be taken with the learned Judge in the High Court in refusing to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.