1988 PLP 1993(2) (SCMR)
ABDUL HAQUE — Petitioner Versus SULEMAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1993(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ, |
| Parties | ABDUL HAQUE — Petitioner Versus SULEMAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1993(2) (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 1993(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1993(2) (SCMR) (ABDUL HAQUE — Petitioner Versus SULEMAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1988.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court dated 15-6-1988 in Civil Revision No.1119 of 1988). --Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal--No new point urged before Supreme Court--View taken by High Court was not erroneous in any way--High Court in fact had dismissed revision because no case of misreading or misconstruction of record by lower Appellate Court was made out- Supreme Court, in the absence of any error of law, declined to grant leave.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J. ‑‑Abdul Haque filed a suit for specific performance against Suleman and others in the Court of Civil Judge, 1st Class, Sargodha. The trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 29‑4‑1985 observing that the remaining sale price of Rs.70,000 be paid within a period of forty‑five days from the date of judgment otherwise the suit shall stand dismissed. Defendant No.1 Suleman was directed to return to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 whatever he had received as price of the suit land. Muhammad Nazir and others filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Court before the Additional District Judge. Pending appeal an application was made by Abdul Haque petitioner for dismissal of the appeal. That application was dismissed by the Additional District Judge by judgment dated 30‑5‑1988. It was observed by the Additional District Judge that the appeal shall proceed on merits. Abdul Haque filed revision against the order of the Additional District Judge in the Lahore High Court. A learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision in limine by order dated 15‑6‑1988. It is against the aforesaid order that Abdul Haque has filed this petition for special leave to appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No new point was urged before us. The view taken by the High Court was not erroneous in any way. As a matter of fact the High Court dismissed the revision because no case of misreading or misconstruction of record was made out. In the light of the aforesaid observation and in the absence of any error of law we don't think this is a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./A.328/S. Petition dismissed.