1991 PLP 1279 (SCMR)
NOOR DIN through Legal Heirs and 3 others — Petitioners Versus SIRAJ DIN and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1279 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and |
| Parties | NOOR DIN through Legal Heirs and 3 others — Petitioners Versus SIRAJ DIN and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1279 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1279 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1279 (SCMR) (NOOR DIN through Legal Heirs and 3 others — Petitioners Versus SIRAJ DIN and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989.
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 16-6-1985 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1985).
Art. 185(3)
Petitioners have contended that map showing position contrary to what had been assumed by High Court had not been properly seen by High Court and if that error had been noticed by High Court its judgment would have been different
Petitioners being so confident should have made application before High Court for review
Case being not fit for grant of leave to appeal, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petitioners have contended that map showing position contrary to what had been assumed by High Court had not been properly seen by High Court and if that error had been noticed by High Court its judgment would have been different‑‑‑Petitioners being so confident should have made application before High Court for review‑‑‑Case being not fit for grant of leave to appeal, petition was dismissed. M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Writ Petition which had arisen out of a consolidation matter. It has been found by the High Court that the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue which was challenged in the High Court was, besides being proper, also just and fair. Particular mention was also made of the fact that the petitioner has been given some land which abuts on a road. Learned counsel has asked us to set aside the High Court judgment on the ground that the map showing a position contrary to what has been assumed by the High Court has not been properly seen by the learned Judge in the High Court. He submitted that the error is such that if noticed by the High Court, the impugned judgment would have been different. If the learned counsel is so confident the petitioners should make an application before the High Court for review. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal by this Court. The same, accordingly, with the foregoing observation is refused. H.B.T./N‑220/S Leave refused.