1986 PLP 1101 (SCMR)
Mst. HUSSAN ARA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs Haji ALLAH DITTA BARKAT ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1101 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. HUSSAN ARA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs Haji ALLAH DITTA BARKAT ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1101 (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 1101 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1101 (SCMR) (Mst. HUSSAN ARA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs Haji ALLAH DITTA BARKAT ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1985.
- Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20-2-1983 in Writ Petition No. 2705 of 1982).
Arts. 185(3) & 199--Appreciation of evidence--Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court--High Court refusing to re-appraise evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction--Order impugned--Approach of High Court being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 20‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioners (regarding ejectment of respondent No. 1 from a shop) against the judgment passed by the District Judge, Gujrat, was dismissed. Learned counsel has assailed the decision of the High Court on the ground that the evidence has not been properly read or it has been ignored. The same argument was repelled by the High Court by the following observation:‑‑ "In this case misreading has been used as a misnomer for erroneous appreciation of evidence since all the times the learned counsel has addressed as to the conclusions from the evidence. The matter has been decided by the learned District Judge after discussing the full evidence. Now what particular weight has been attached by him to different pieces of evidence is not the job of this Court to scrutinize." The approach of the High Court is unexceptionable. It has rightly refused to reappraise the evidence in its Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to institute fresh petition on grounds including of default and personal requirement; because as stated, new situations have arisen regarding these grounds. With these observations leave to appeal is refused. M.I. Petition dismissed.