2012 PLP 685 (SCMR)
Mst. REHANA ZEB — Petitioner Versus Dr. MATWARRA HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 685 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Shakirullah Jan, Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. REHANA ZEB — Petitioner Versus Dr. MATWARRA HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 685 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 685 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Shakirullah Jan, Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 685 (SCMR) (Mst. REHANA ZEB — Petitioner Versus Dr. MATWARRA HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Gul Zarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.1 to 4.
- Nemo for Respondent No.5.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 11-10-2010 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in C.R. No.991 of 2010).
Art. 185(3)
Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court, Appellate Court and Revisional Court
Absence of misreading or non-reading of any material evidence by courts below
Effect
Supreme Court dismissed the petition in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.
This petition has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the three Courts below i.e. trial Court, appellate Court and the revisional Court whereby the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties revolves around a house No.218-E, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi whereby the plaintiff respondent who is the daughter of the original owner states that she is the owner of the half of the house by way of inheritance while the half of the house has been transferred to her through an oral gift by her mother while on the other hand the respondents claim is that they are the legal heirs of the original owner and they have inherited the remaining one half in the house. The evidence was led pro and contra and as a result of the contest of the parties the suit was decided in favour of the respondents which was upheld by the appellate as well as the revisional Courts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain portions of the evidence and according to him the petitioner has been able to prove her case and which evidence was not adverted to by the three Courts below.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and also the evidence which was referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we did not find any misreading or non-reading of the material evidence of the nature if read in accord the manner the petitioner's counsel suggest, even then that would not result in a conclusion different from the one arrived by the Courts. We, therefore, see no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed. S.A.K./R-3/SC Petition dismissed.