1984 PLP 76 (SCMR)
Syed TAHIR-UL-HASSAN ZAIDI-Petitioner Versus Mst. NUSRAT TAHIR-UL-HASSAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 76 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed TAHIR-UL-HASSAN ZAIDI-Petitioner Versus Mst. NUSRAT TAHIR-UL-HASSAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ---Art. 185 (3)-Concurrent finding of fact by lower Courts not interfered by High Court-Petitioner unable to dispute correctness of finding-Order of High Court not interfered with being un exception |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 76 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ---Art. 185 (3)-Concurrent finding of fact by lower Courts not interfered by High Court-Petitioner unable to dispute correctness of finding-Order of High Court not interfered with being un exception as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 76 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 76 (SCMR) (Syed TAHIR-UL-HASSAN ZAIDI-Petitioner Versus Mst. NUSRAT TAHIR-UL-HASSAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Samad Mahmood Advocate Supreme Court (Absent) instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1983.
- Samad Mahmood Advocate Supreme Court (Absent) instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in Writ Petition No. 3036 of 1979).
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.‑In this petition the dispute relates to the recovery of dower debt about which it was alleged that it was paid through a bank on 15th of February, 1975, at Lahore. The trial Court held that the bank transaction was fake as she was not t1le recipient of the amount withdrawn from the bank. On appeal the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, affirmed this finding upon an appraisal of evidence on record. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged this finding in the Lahore High Court through a constitution petition, but did not succeed, as the High Court did not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to seriously dispute the correctness of this finding. Accordingly, we see no justification to interfere with the order of the High Court, which is unexceptionable. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.