1989SCMR1505(1) (PLP)
NAZIR AHMAD Petitioner Versus Syed ZAFAR HUSSIAN SHAH Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1505(1) (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD Petitioner Versus Syed ZAFAR HUSSIAN SHAH Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1505(1) (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1505(1) (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1505(1) (PLP) (NAZIR AHMAD Petitioner Versus Syed ZAFAR HUSSIAN SHAH Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Inayat Ullah, Advocate, instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 3rd November, 1984 passed by Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No. 480/D of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Concurrent findings of three Courts below against petitioner‑‑Held, even if there was some technical defect in the proceedings which could benefit the petitioner, that would not make it a fit case for grant of leave‑‑Leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J. Leave o appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner/defendant's Civil Revision. It had arisen out of a decree compensating the respondent /plaintiff for malicious prosecution launched by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel on merits of the allegations as well as legal objection that the respondent was never acquitted by any Criminal Court consideration of the facts of the case. On the other hand the petitioner's plea s that the prosecution launched by him was not only based on true facts but also as bona fide. On facts and merits all the three Courts have held against the petitioner. hat being so even if there is some technical defect in the proceedings which can benefit the petitioner, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal The same accordingly is refused. M.B./N‑153/S Leave refused.