1985 PLP 1906 (SCMR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1906 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1906 (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 1906 (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 1906 (SCMR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1985.
- Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Grant of--Concurrent finding on question of fact--Lower Courts having carefully considered evidence and reached correct conclusion, no interference warranted--Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 4‑12‑1979, dismissing their civil revision.
2. The petitioners had filed a suit for possession of the house which they claimed to have purchased through a sale‑deed dated 5‑8‑1947. Seven issues were framed. Out of these the main issue (i.e Issue No. 5) reads as follows:‑‑ "(5) Whether the sale‑deed, dated 5‑8‑1947 is fictitious, fraudulent and forged, and if so, what effect, O.P.D.?" It is evident that this issue relates to, is a question of fact and all the three Courts below have decided against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the learned Court, below have ignored material evidence on the record.
4. We have carefully considered this contention but are of tire view that the learned Courts below have carefully considered the evidence referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and reached a correct conclusion. The matter, therefore does not warrant interference' by this Court.
5. The petition is consequently dismissed as having no merit. M.I. Appeal dismissed.