1987 PLP 1149 (SCMR)
HABIB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFIZA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1149 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | HABIB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFIZA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1149 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1149 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1149 (SCMR) (HABIB KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFIZA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nawab‑ud‑Din Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑10‑1986 in Civil Revision No. 1943‑D of 1985). ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Findings based on appreciation of evidence‑ Interference with‑‑Petitioner claiming ownership of land on basis of oral purchase and construction thereon made by him‑‑Trial Court/ Appellate Court holding that alleged sale in his favour was not established nor he was in possession of said land‑‑High Court's order declining to interfere with concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence, upheld‑‑Plea that District Judge had not recorded his findings on a number of issues framed at trial also not entertained because petitioner was unable to establish sale on which he rested his claim to ownership of land in dispute‑‑Not being a fit case for interference, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑10‑1986 in Civil Revision No. 1943‑D of 1985). ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Findings based on appreciation of evidence‑ Interference with‑‑Petitioner claiming ownership of land on basis of oral purchase and construction thereon made by him‑‑Trial Court/ Appellate Court holding that alleged sale in his favour was not established nor he was in possession of said land‑‑High Court's order declining to interfere with concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence, upheld‑‑Plea that District Judge had not recorded his findings on a number of issues framed at trial also not entertained because petitioner was unable to establish sale on which he rested his claim to ownership of land in dispute‑‑Not being a fit case for interference, leave to appeal refused. Ch. Nawab‑ud‑Din Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th April, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave to appeal which arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner, the dispute between the parties relates to a piece of land, measuring 3 Marlas, situate in village Tatliali of District Gujranwala. The case of the petitioner was that Muhammad Hanif, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, had sold this land to him for Rs.2,000 by an. oral transaction and that after purchasing the land he had constructed a shop on it. The trial Court as well as the District Judge found that the alleged sale in his favour had not been established and that he was not in possession of the land. The High Court in revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere with these findings as they were based on appreciation of the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that these findings suffer from any infirmity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that at the trial a number of issues were framed but the District Judge did not record his findings thereon. This is indeed so but then as the petitioner was unable to establish the sale on which he rested his claim to ownership of the land in dispute we do not think that this is a fit case where we should interfere. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I/H‑11/S Petition dismissed.