1968 SCMR 267 (PLP)
ABDUL KHALEQUE MIA-Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 267 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL KHALEQUE MIA-Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 267 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 267 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 267 (PLP) (ABDUL KHALEQUE MIA-Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA BEGUM AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nizamuddin Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by D. K. Khadi m, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- The learned Advocate for the petitioner has attempted to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below. He has however, failed to satisfy us that the said findings were arrived at by non-consideration of any evidence which was essential for determination of the case. The first appellate Court has exhaustively dealt with all the findings and material referred to in the judgment of the trial Court. In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the second appeal.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 13th June 1967, in B. A. No. 368 of 1967). Finding of fact-Concurrent findings by Courts below-Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court rejected-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3).
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the suit land upon declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The plaintiff claimed the suit land on the strength of her purchase from the landlords, namely, the Ghoses. On the other hand, the defendant's case was that one, Narayan Chandra Chatterjee, auction-purchased the suit land and he then took settlement of the same from him. In support of his claim, he relied on the rent receipts granted from the Sherista of the said Narayan Chandra Chatterjee. The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence upheld the claim of .the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The first appellate Court also after consideration of the entire evidence in the case upheld the decision of the trial Court. The defendant then filed a second appeal before the High Court, but the same was summarily dismissed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has attempted to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below. He has however, failed to satisfy us that the said findings were arrived at by non-consideration of any evidence which was essential for determination of the case. The first appellate Court has exhaustively dealt with all the findings and material referred to in the judgment of the trial Court. In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the second appeal. We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed