1988 PLP 1990 (SCMR)
WAHID KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1990 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | WAHID KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1990 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1990 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1990 (SCMR) (WAHID KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
- S.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7th June, 1988 in Civil Revision No.1476 of 1981).
Art.185(3)--Findings of fact having been decided against the petitioner and no question of law involved, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the Civil Revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration that he was owner of property No.P‑215, Ward No.6 Faisalabad except shop consisting of two rooms towards Bhawana Bazar and as a consequential relief he also sought decree for permanent injunction against respondent No.1 and the other respondents. The suit was contested by respondent No.1. The claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was owner of portion of property on the ground floor was denied. The trial Court after considering the evidence of both the sides and in the light of the findings arrived at in favour of the petitioner on issues Nos.4 and 5 decreed the suit. The appeal of respondent No.1 against the judgment of the trial Court was accepted by the Additional District Judge and thus the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by way of civil` revision which has been dismissed by learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court as stated above mainly on the ground that the findings arrived of by, the trial Court on issues Nos.4 and 5 were not in accordance with the evidence on record and, therefore, the lower appellate Court had correctly reversed the same. In other words learned counsel for the petitioner could not convince the learned Judge that the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court in any way amounted to either misreading or misconstruing the record or in any way keeping out of consideration any material piece of evidence which had bearing upon the merits of the case. Since the findings of fact have been decided against the petitioner and no question of law is involved, we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./W‑35/S Petition dismissed.