1991 PLP 1760 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RASHEED — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1760 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHEED — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1760 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1760 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1760 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RASHEED — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadra, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing; 10th March, 1990.
- Mian Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadra, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑Mian Abdur Rashid Advocate Supreme Court has already been permitted in this review petition to substitute the learned counsel and also the Advocate‑on‑Record, who originally were engaged for presenting the case of the petitioner before this Court when the impugned judgment was passed.
Headnotes / Summary
(For review of judgment dated 3-5-1989 passed in Civil Appeal No.341 of 1985).
OXXVI, R.1
Review was sought on the ground that identity of property as was purchased by respondent and the one which petitioner had agreed to purchase was not established because Khasra Numbers of two properties were different
Such issue was neither earlier raised by petitioner nor was dealt with by any of the Courts
Such ground, thus would not be available to petitioner on account of fact that it was not taken up by petitioner at any earlier stage and also for the reason that particulars and description of property were not confined to its Khasra Number, but same were provided in sufficient detail otherwise to identify the same
Petition having no merit, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑Mian Abdur Rashid Advocate Supreme Court has already been permitted in this review petition to substitute the learned counsel and also the Advocate‑on‑Record, who originally were engaged for presenting the case of the petitioner before this Court when the impugned judgment was passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to take up a ground which was never earlier raised nor has been dealt with by any of the courts, namely, that the identity of the property as was purchased by the respondent and the one which the petitioner had agreed to purchase was not established because the Khasra Numbers of the two properties were different. This ground would not be available to the petitioner on account of the fact that it was not taken up at any earlier stage, and also for the reason that the particulars and description of the property is not confined to its Khasra numbers but is provided in sufficient detail otherwise to identify the property. This petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1333/S Petition dismissed.