1989SCMR565 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AMIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR565 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR565 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR565 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR565 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AMIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988. , MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for declaration, against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 stated to be the petitioner's co‑sharers sold a piece of land to Respondent No.l from a Khata which was alleged to be joint. The petitioner challenged the transaction on the ground that it involved his share. The suit was decreed. The respondents' appeal was allowed on the ground that the alienation was not beyond their share. This appellate decision having been affirmed by the High Court to Civil Revision filed by the petitioner, he has now sought leave to appeal. Although the findings of fact were questioned before the: High Court, the learned counsel has now urged before this Court that an earlier decree regarding the same land but with different area, has not been noticed by the High Court. This plea was not raised before the High Court. However, after hearing the learned counsel in this behalf we are satisfied that the first appellate judgment does not suffer from any such error which should have been corrected in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./M‑683/S Leave to appeal refused.