1988 PLP 880 (SCMR)
BARKAT‑‑Petitioner Versus RAHIM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 880 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Haaan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BARKAT‑‑Petitioner Versus RAHIM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 880 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 880 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Haaan Shah, Javid Iqbal 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 880 (SCMR) (BARKAT‑‑Petitioner Versus RAHIM BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment /decree, dated 11‑5‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 656 of 1977. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Claim of petitioner to land in dispute on basis of adverse possession rejected by trial Court and Additional District Judge and High Court after examining record declined to interfere with concurrent findings of Courts below‑ Petitioner unable to show that said finding suffered from any infirmity‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner's claim to the land in dispute is based on the plea that he has become owner thereof on the basis of adverse possession extending over one hundred years. The trial Court and the Additional District Judge have rejected his plea and the High Court after examining the record declined to interfere with their concurrent findings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the said finding suffers from any infirmity. Leave is refused. M.Y.F4./B‑41/S Leave refused.