1990 PLP 909 (SCMR)
ABDUL LATIF and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and 15 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 909 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL LATIF and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and 15 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 909 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 909 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 909 (SCMR) (ABDUL LATIF and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and 15 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Abdul Hayee, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from, the judgment and decree dated 25‑5‑1986 of the Lahore High Court m Regular Second Appeal No.308 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact rendered by Courts below, held, cold not be examined further when no error of law or principle regarding such findings had been pointed out.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact rendered by Courts below, held, cold not be examined further when no error of law or principle regarding such findings had been pointed out. Qazi Abdul Hayee, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side in a suit for declaration arising out of a dispute relating to Waqf Property; against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal. As stated by the learned counsel the disputed house, according to respondents/plaintiffs side, is a part of the Waqf Property‑‑a mosque while according to petitioners the house is in private ownership. Learned Courts below have rendered concurrent findings of fact in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents side on the above controversy. That being so, it is no more a fit case for further examination in so far as the facts and merits arc concerned; as when asked to show any error of law or principle regarding the findings, the learned counsel instead of doing so raised technical objections. They, in the circumstances of this case are not such so as to grant leave to appeal to the petitioners side who have no case on merits. The same, accordingly, is refused. H.B.T./A‑624/S Leave refused.