1989SCMR88 (PLP)
JEHANDAR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KARIM KHAN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR88 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | JEHANDAR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KARIM KHAN and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR88 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR88 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR88 (PLP) (JEHANDAR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KARIM KHAN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- --Art. 185(3)--Petitioners seeking observation of Supreme Court that they be not precluded from filing necessary proceedings for resolving the remaining disputes--Counsel for respondents-caveator agreeing to the suggestion- Petitioners allowed to initiate fresh competent proceeding, in accordance with law, if so advised.
- K.G. Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners
- Tariq Jamal, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1988.
- ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioners seeking observation of Supreme Court that they be not precluded from filing necessary proceedings for resolving the remaining disputes‑‑Counsel for respondents‑caveator agreeing to the suggestion‑ Petitioners allowed to initiate fresh competent proceeding, in accordance with law, if so advised.
- K.G. Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners
- Tariq Jamal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 16th February, 1988 in C.R. No. 420 of 1985).
Art. 185(3)--Evidence, appreciation of--Question of appreciation of evidence raised--Re-appraisal of material before the Courts below being not fit ground for grant of leave to appeal, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side in a suit against the dismissal by the Peshawar High Court of their Civil Revision. The respondents suit regarding declaration as to the ownership of the suit land was dismissed by the trial Court. The respondents appeal was accepted. The petitioners' plea that they were purchasers in possession of the land in dispute was not accepted. Their revision failed in the High Court. Learned counsel explained that while accepting the respondents' plea the learned District, Court had not rejected the petitioners' plea that they had purchased certain land but had held that it was a different land. Accordingly, the respondents' suit was decreed by the appellate Court. The High Court on petitioners' revision affirmed the appellate judgment. Therefore, this petition for leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel, who has raised question of appreciation of evidence, we do not consider it a fit case for re‑appraisal of the material before the learned Courts below. Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal merits to be dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that, the relevant question with regard to the land purchased by the petitioners side, even if it was different from the one regarding which the respondents had filed a suit, were not clearly resolved in the litigation as noted in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Therefore, it may be observed that the petitioners would not be precluded from filing necessary proceedings for resolving the remaining disputes. Learned counsel for the respondents‑caveator has agreed to the suggestion made by the petitioners' learned counsel. We, therefore, while dismissing this petition, observe that the petitioners, if so advised, may initiate fresh competent proceedings, in accordance with law. M.A.K./J‑37/S Petition dismissed.