1987 PLP 669 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KHATOON and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 669 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Mian Burhanuddin Khan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KHATOON and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 669 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 669 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Mian Burhanuddin Khan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 669 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KHATOON and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Mahmood Aslam Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, dated 16‑12‑1979 in R.S.A. No. 51 of 1961/BWP). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑No infirmity, legal or otherwise, was shown in judgments of two Appellate Courts‑‑There being no justification for re‑appraisal of evidence, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Mahmood Aslam Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th February, 1987. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 16‑12‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' Regular Second Appeal arising out of a decree passed in favour of the respondents, was dismissed. In an earlier round of litigation, the petitioner side had obtained a consent decree against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were then minors. Their guardian ad litem had agreed to an illegal increase of share of the petitioners' side in the disputed property. The minors were then obliged to file a suit for declaration that the said consent decree obtained by the petitioner side was based on fraud and was collusive and was so obtained in connivance with Usman Ghani, their guardian ad litem. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but the plaintiffs' appeal was allowed. The findings of fact by the trial Court were set aside. It was held that the consent decree was obtained by fraud and collusion. Accordingly, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 suit was decreed and the earlier consent decree was set aside. The petitioners' Second Appeal in the High Court having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to show that the consent decree passed against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was based on a genuine compromise, therefore, it could not be set aside, on ground of fraud and collusion. He has not been able to show any infirmity in the two appellate judgments legal or otherwise. No justification for re‑appraisal of evidence has been made out. This petition accordingly, is dismissed. M .I . /M‑25 /S Petition dismissed.