1985 PLP 1900 (SCMR)
Moulvi ABDUL AZIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus Nawab SARFRAZ ALI KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1900 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Moulvi ABDUL AZIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus Nawab SARFRAZ ALI KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1900 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1900 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1900 (SCMR) (Moulvi ABDUL AZIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus Nawab SARFRAZ ALI KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Advocate instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) with Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1985.
- Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Advocate instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) with Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order, dated 23rd August, 1984 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, passed in Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 883 and 884 of 1981). --Art. 188--Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, r. 1--Review- Grounds for--Error pointed out in High Court order nothing more than a mis-description--Point neither taken in petition for leave to appeal nor argued during its hearing--No case made out for review- -Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Art. 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, r. 1‑‑Review‑ Grounds for‑‑Error pointed out in High Court order nothing more than a mis-description‑‑Point neither taken in petition for leave to appeal nor argued during its hearing‑‑No case made out for review‑ ‑Petition dismissed. Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Advocate instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) with Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st June, 1985. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑In these two petitions filed fur review of this Court's order, dated 23‑8‑1984 dismissing Civil Petitions Nos. 883 and 884 of 1981, it is urged that the High Court had mistaken Mutation No. 1077 sanctioned on 15th May, 1964 to be mutation of the sale in question but the said mutation was in fact of inheritance and not of the sale. Learned counsel points out that the sale mutation was No. 1107 sanctioned on 31st July, 1964 and urges that the error which occurred in the High Court had been carried forward to this Court.1 No such point had been taken in the Petitions for Leave to Appeal nor argued before this Court during the hearing of those petitions. So far this Court is concerned, the sale mutation had been correctly noted as being No. 1107 sanctioned on 31st July, 1964. In any case nothing turns on it because the error in the order of the High Court is nothing more than a mis-description.
2. After hearing learned counsel we feel satisfied that no case is made out for review. The petitions are dismissed. M.I. Petitions dismissed.