1991 PLP 775 (SCMR)
WAQAR SAHGAL and others — Petitioners Versus NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 775 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and |
| Parties | WAQAR SAHGAL and others — Petitioners Versus NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 775 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 775 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 775 (SCMR) (WAQAR SAHGAL and others — Petitioners Versus NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1990.
- Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 24-10-1989 passed by the Lahore High Court, in E.F.A. No. 104 of 1983).
Art.185(3)
Contention that legal points raised by petitioners had not been determined by High Court, was totally devoid of force in view of fact that grievance of petitioners before High Court was that they had been denied opportunity of evidence to prove their assertion
Submission of petitioners was accepted by High Court, appeal was allowed and case was remanded for fresh decision after framing issues and giving parties opportunity to produce evidence
High Court, in circumstances, held, was not required to determine legal points raised which had no relevance for decision of grievance -urged and which was redressed
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Contention that legal points raised by petitioners had not been determined by High Court, was totally devoid of force in view of fact that grievance of petitioners before High Court was that they had been denied opportunity of evidence to prove their assertion‑‑‑Submission of petitioners was accepted by High Court, appeal was allowed and case was remanded for fresh decision after framing issues and giving parties opportunity to produce evidence‑‑‑High Court, in circumstances, held, was not required to determine legal points raised which had no relevance for decision of grievance ‑urged and which was redressed‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑In execution proceedings, the petitioners filed E.F.A. No. 104 of 1983 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The grievance of the appellants that "they had been denied opportunity of evidence to prove their assertions", was found to be "not without force". The appeal was accordingly accepted. Impugned order was set aside and case "remanded to the learned Executing Court for decision afresh after framing of issues and giving of opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence." This is vide order dated 24‑10‑1989. The appellants/petitioners seek leave to appeal.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had raised legal issues, which have not been determined by the learned High Court.
3. The contention of the learned counsel is totally devoid of force. The grievance of the petitioners before the High Court was "that they had been denied opportunity of evidence to prove their assertions". The submission was accepted, appeal was allowed and case "remanded to the executing Court for decision afresh after framing of issues and giving of opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence". In the circumstances, the learned High Court was not required to determine the legal points raised which had no relevance for the decision of the grievance urged and which was redressed. For academic discussion the forums are elsewhere or the universities.
4. There is no merit in this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./W‑81/S Petition dismissed.