1988 PLP 1500 (SCMR)
Mst. MANZOORAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1500 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MANZOORAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1500 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1500 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah 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 1500 (SCMR) (Mst. MANZOORAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh.Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
- Sh.Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 14-1-1984 in Criminal Revision No.517 of 1983).
S.115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Concurrent findings of fact--Interference with- Authenticity /genuineness of document-- Appellate Court and High Court reaching concurrent findings against petitioner--Impugned judgment not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise--No justification found for interference with such findings of fact--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two petitions for leave to appeal have been instituted by a pre‑emptor calling in question the dismissal of her two civil revision petitions by the High Court it pre‑emption matters involving a common question, which has been raised by her learned counsel. According to him, she has been non suited on the ground of estoppel; the decision of which depended upon the authenticity/ genuineness of document described by the learned counsel as Dastbardari. It is correct that the trial Court found this issue in favour of the petitioner but the appeal Court and the High Court have reached concurrent findings against the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we find no justification for interference with such findings of fact as have been reached in this case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. These petitions are dismissed. M.I. /M‑484/S Petitions dismissed.