1987 PLP 805 (SCMR)
TAJ DIN Petitioner Versus MANAK and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 805 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | TAJ DIN Petitioner Versus MANAK and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 805 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 805 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat 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 805 (SCMR) (TAJ DIN Petitioner Versus MANAK and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dated 19‑12‑1979 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.958 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss 96, 100 & O.XIV, R. 1‑‑Issues, framing of‑‑Additional District Judge, in appeal, feeling content with disposal of only one out of five issues framed in suit‑‑High Court findings that contest between the parties remained confined to only one issue before First Appellate Court‑‑Such findings, held, were unexceptionable‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dated 19‑12‑1979 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.958 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss 96, 100 & O.XIV, R. 1‑‑Issues, framing of‑‑Additional District Judge, in appeal, feeling content with disposal of only one out of five issues framed in suit‑‑High Court findings that contest between the parties remained confined to only one issue before First Appellate Court‑‑Such findings, held, were unexceptionable‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987. S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The respondents' suit for a declaration in respect of a thoroughfare was dismissed by the trial Court but was later decreed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. This led to the filing of a second appeal by the petitioner in the High Court. The appeal was contested only on two grounds, namely, that the evidence of Ziledar had been misread by the First Appellate Court and although as many as five issues were framed in the suit, yet the learned Additional District Judge felt content with the disposal of only one of the said issues. Accordingly it was contended that the appeal was not disposed properly. The learned High Court found that the contest between the parties remained confined to issue No.4 before the First Appellate Court and in the circumstances the findings of the trial Court on the other issues were not discussed. Such findings are indeed unexceptionable. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed. S. Q/T‑4/S Petition dismissed.