1989 PLP 1215(1) (SCMR)
JAVAID and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., CHINIOT‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1215(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah mid Saad Saood Jan, JJ , |
| Parties | JAVAID and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., CHINIOT‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1215(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1215(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah mid Saad Saood Jan, JJ ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1215(1) (SCMR) (JAVAID and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., CHINIOT‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑2‑1983 in R.S.A. No.137 of 1983). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Refusal by the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, on examination by Supreme Court, found to be unexceptionable‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the debtors‑defendants against the dismissal by the High Court of their Regular Second Appeal; which had arisen out of a decree for the recovery of the disputed amount, passed against the petitioners. They having failed before all the learned Courts below on facts and merits, have now sought leave to appeal. The case now stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below. The refusal by the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, has on examination, been found to be unexceptionable. After hearing the learned counsel, we find no merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused. M.BA./J‑45/S Petition dismissed.