1992 PLP 1439 (SCMR)
KARAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1439 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | KARAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1439 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1439 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1439 (SCMR) (KARAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Munir Peracha, Advocate' Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 8‑6‑1991 and dated 9‑12‑1990 in Civil Revision No.288 of 1991 and R.SA. No.55 of 1990 respectively passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the question that petitioner's evidence that he had made improvement on land had not been controverted by respondent and petitioner's claim in this behalf remained un-rebutted; and that Courts below had misread evidence on that score and had not granted compensation; and that petitioner was entitled to costs of improvement. Abdul Qayyum v. Ali Asghar Shah 1992 S C M R 241 ref.
Judgment & Decree
M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Munir Peracha, Advocate' Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1992. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions against the judgment of the High Court dated 8‑6‑1991 and dated 9‑12‑1990.
2. The objection raised before the Courts below was that the application for execution of the decree filed by the decree‑holder was barred by time. This objection of the petitioner did not prevail with the Courts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of judgment of this Court in Abdul Qayyum v. Ali Asghar Shah 1992 S C M R 241 the point has been decided against the petitioner. As such, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused in Civil Petition No.183 of 1991.
4. In Civil Petition No.48 of 1991, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner produced evidence that he has made improvement on the land, and that evidence has not been controverted by the respondent. The evidence of the petitioner remained un-rebutted. The Courts below have misread the evidence on this score and have not granted the compensation.
5. Leave to appeal is granted in Civil Petition No.48 of 1991 to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to costs of improvement. The execution proceedings are stayed. No security. AA./K‑189S/S Order accordingly.