1989 PLP 1154 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1154 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1154 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1154 (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: 1989 PLP 1154 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 24th April, 1983 in Civil Revision No.586‑D of 1982). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑High Court dismissed revision of petitioner on the ground that both Courts below had applied their mind to the evidence on record and had given findings of fact on the relevant issues as against the petitioner‑‑Such findings of fact as against the petitioner, held, could not be disturbed‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 24th April 1983 whereby the civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the respondent Muhammad Iqbal filed a suit against the petitioner for possession on the basis of ownership of the disputed land measuring one Marla only. The suit was contested but was eventually decreed. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and thereafter his civil revision was also dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench on the ground that both the Courts below had applied their mind to the evidence on the record and had given findings of fact on the relevant issues as against the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length but we are of the view that the findings of fact as against the petitioner cannot be disturbed by this Court. Therefore this petition is dismissed. M.BA./A‑465/S Petition dismissed.