1991 PLP 1943 (SCMR)
Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZULAIKHA BIBI and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1943 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZULAIKHA BIBI and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1943 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1943 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1943 (SCMR) (Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZULAIKHA BIBI and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. War, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing- 19th March, 1990.
- S.M. War, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtat Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 3-4-1989 in C.R. 72 of 1984).
O. VII, R.11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
All the three Courts had in some detail discussed the facts stated in the plaint making the same liable to be rejected in the summary manner
Supreme Court declined interference and rejected the petition for leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑Mst. Shahnaz Begum seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3‑4‑1989, dismissing her revision petition against the judgment of a learned Additional District Judge of Rawalpindi dated 2‑4‑1984, who affirmed the order of a learned Civil Judge of Rawalpindi dated 11‑5‑1981 rejecting the petitioner's plaint.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was a dispute as regards whether 5 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land which was allotted to Mst. Zulaikha Bibi respondent No.l as agricultural land in lieu of her verified claim, could be so allotted to her, as the same, with a large parcel of land, had already been allotted to Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner's uncle, on an industrial basis, the petitioner filed a suit for the said matter to be sorted out, but the plaint was illegally rejected by the Civil Judge and which decision has teen maintained by the two higher Courts. It is submitted that the facts stated in the plaint did not entitle the plaint to be rejected in that summary manner.
3. All the three Courts have in some detail discussed this matter and given their cogent findings. The plaint was rightly rejected. Even otherwise Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner, had already 1 exhausted his remedies before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities against the transfer of the disputed land made in favour of Mst. Zulaikha Bibi, respondent No.l. In these circumstances, no interference is called for. This petition is therefore, dismissed. M.BA./634/S‑S Petition dismissed.