1991 PLP 347 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 347 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 347 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 347 (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: 1991 PLP 347 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Nisar Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmud A. Qureshi Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th August, 1989.
- Mian Nisar Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmud A. Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 9th February 1986 in C.R. No. 343/13 of 1986).
Art. 185(3)
Concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below based on personal inspection of site by Appellate Court, held, could not be interfered with in absence of any misreading of evidence
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 9th February 1986 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the staircase situated between their and the petitioner's shop was co‑owned by both the parties for having access to their respective upper portions and that the petitioner had no right to prevent them from its user. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court concurrently held that the staircase was commonly owned by both the parties and this finding of fact was based on personal inspection of the Additional District Judge who had noted that there was a door connecting the staircase with the roof of the respondents' shop. It was on the bass of this concurrent finding of fact that learned Judge of the High Court had dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us attempted to argue that there had been misreading of evidence in the instant case but this argument is without any substance because the findings of fact recorded against the petitioner by all the Courts throughout had been based on personal inspection of the site by the Additional District Judge. The petition therefore has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1102/S Petition dismissed.