1989SCMR601 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR601 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal ZuIlah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR601 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR601 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal ZuIlah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR601 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for declaration to the effect that one Taj Muhammad had made an oral gift in his favour regarding the suit property and therefore he is its owner. The petitioner offered to Rehmat Ali respondent No.l (a defendant) for making a statement on oath of Holy Quran that Taj Muhammad had not made the Gift, on the making of which, the petitioner/plaintiff would give up the claim and the suit would then be dismissed. Rehmat Ali made the required statement on the required oath and thus succeeded. The petitioner having lost the case in the High Court also has sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel has raised the contention that the co‑defendants of Rehmat Ali had not made the oath, therefore, to that extent, the suit could not have been dismissed. On the question as to whether the petitioner wanted Rehmat Ali alone to make the oath for the purpose of deciding the entire suit, A the learned counsel answered in the affirmative. That being so he cannot now add any other condition. Learned counsel could not press the petition any further, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑681/S Leave to appeal refused.