1989 PLP 1326 (SCMR)
ABDUL RASHID‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1326 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1326 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1326 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1326 (SCMR) (ABDUL RASHID‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Zakiud Din Paul, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Anwarul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to 17.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑2‑1983 in W.P. No.74‑R of 1983). ‑‑‑Art.185(3) ‑Petition for leave to appeal Question of fact relating to matters as to who constructed the shop, factor of possession. allotment pertaining to the plot over which shop was constructed and the payment of rent, were properly and thoroughly examined by the Settlement Authorities and in the judgment of High Court‑‑Finding of fact recorded by High Court neither suffered from any error of law nor involved a question of public importance Leave Refused
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Full dress arguments were heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged certain findings of fact; for instance as to who constructed the ship, factum of possession, allotment pertaining to the plot over which the shop was constructed and the payment of rent. All these questions have been properly and thoroughly examined by the Settlement Authorities as well as in the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑2‑1983 against which the present petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Abdul Rashid. Learned Judge of the High Court observed, "...Settlement Commissioner has given a finding of fact that the respondents' predecessors‑in‑interest were in possession and they built the shop. This finding is supported by the material on record". Learned Judge further made sure as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. He observed, "...Para, 6 of the impugned order, however, shows that both the parties relied upon their written arguments, already on the file. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of this averment". For the foregoing reasons we don't think that the order impugned either suffers from any error of law or involves a question of public importance which needs to be examined. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal. The petition is I accordingly dismissed. A.A./A‑504/S Leave refused.