1988 PLP 1977 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ANAYAT BIBI — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1977 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HALEEM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ANAYAT BIBI — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1977 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1977 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1977 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HALEEM — Petitioner Versus Mst. ANAYAT BIBI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1988.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 28-3-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.1605/D of 1981). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
S.115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Concurrent findings of fact- -Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Suit for possession decreed in favour of respondent and decision upheld by High Court--Leave to appeal--Matter having been concluded by concurrent findings of fact by Courts below, High Court, held, was justified in not setting aside same in its revisioral jurisdiction- Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is by a defendant in a civil suit for possession which has been decreed in favour of his mother, the respondent herein. It is not necessary to give the details of all the facts on account of which the mother was compelled to file the suit against the petitioner. Suffice it to say that she has succeeded throughout upto the High Court, which dismissed petitioner's civil revision. He has, therefore, sought leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel, it can be safely said that the case now stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below against the petitioner. The High Court rightly thought that findings against the petitioner were not such which could be set aside in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us that it was a fit case for interference by the High Court in civil revision. That being so, leave to appeal is refused. M.I./M‑560/S Petition dismissed.