1986 PLP 214 (SCMR)
MAHBOOB ELAHI Petitioner Versus Mst. IQBAL JAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 214 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | MAHBOOB ELAHI Petitioner Versus Mst. IQBAL JAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 214 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 214 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 214 (SCMR) (MAHBOOB ELAHI Petitioner Versus Mst. IQBAL JAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Jaffar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court with K.E. Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Points raised in Support of petition relating to appreciation of evidence and findings of facts reached by Courts below rooted in evidence with which no valid justification existing for interference‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 5‑2‑1985 dismissing a revision application filed by petitioner. By that revision application, petitioner sought to challenge the judgment of Civil Judge, 11 Class, Attock decreeing respondents suit against petitioner for declaration of title and possession of a shop and for perpetual injunction against petitioner The points raised in support of the petition relate to appreciation of evidence and since we find that the findings of facts reached by the Court below are rooted in evidence, there is no valid justification for this Court to interfere. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. Y. H. Leave refused.