1989 PLP 1202 (SCMR)
Mst. FATIMA and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. REHMAT MAI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1202 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. FATIMA and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. REHMAT MAI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1202 (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 1989 PLP 1202 (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: 1989 PLP 1202 (SCMR) (Mst. FATIMA and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. REHMAT MAI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 12‑11‑1983 to C.R. No.126‑78/BWP). ‑‑‑OXLI, R.19‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art‑185(3)‑‑Restoration of appeal‑‑Findings of fact did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Reliance by High Court on the testimony of the counsel of the respondent as witness and his affidavit was unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side in an inheritance declaratory suit, against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. The respondent‑plaintiffs suit was dismissed for non‑prosecution due to her absence as also the absence of her counsel. Her application for restoration alongwith an application for condonation of delay filed before the trial Court, was dismissed. On respondent's appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the order and allowed the application for restoration of the suit. The petitioners' Civil Revision was dismissed by the High Court. They have now sought leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the reliance by the High Court on the testimony of the counsel of the respondent as A.W. 4 and his affidavit, were unexceptionable. The findings of fact brought under challenge before us, did not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./F‑112/S Leave refused.