1989 PLP 1624 (SCMR)
ALLAH YAR and another Petitioners Versus Mst. KHAN BIBI and 42 others‑‑Respondents,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1624 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH YAR and another Petitioners Versus Mst. KHAN BIBI and 42 others‑‑Respondents, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1624 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1624 (SCMR)?
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: 1989 PLP 1624 (SCMR) (ALLAH YAR and another Petitioners Versus Mst. KHAN BIBI and 42 others‑‑Respondents,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S. A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court. Multan Bench, dated 2‑6‑1987, passed in Civil Revision No.376 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art.l85(3)‑‑Contentions raised were relating to question of fact which had been concluded by the concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners‑‑High Court rightly holding that findings of fact against petitioners were not of a nature which could be interfered with in revision jurisdiction‑‑Petitioners failed to point out violation of any question of law in the concurrent findings of Courts below which could make out case liable for examination‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 2‑6‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby, Civil Revision No. 376/85 of the petitioners from the appellate order of the Addl. District Judge, Multan dated 20‑12‑1984 and that of the Civil Judge, Multan dated 25‑11‑1980, was dismissed. The dispute between the parties relates to the inheritance of Noor Muhammad deceased. The plaintiffs/petitioners had brought a suit for establishing their rights on the alleged claim of being collaterals of the deceased. The suit was contested by the defendants/respondents and various issues were framed by the trial Court. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs/petitioners are not entitled to inherit the property of the deceased as they are related to him at a remote degree and vide his judgment dated 25‑11‑1980, dismissed the plaint. Appeal of the plaintiffs/ petitioners before the Adds. District Judge was dismissed or, 20‑12‑1984. Revision petition of the petitioners was also dismissed by the High Court, vide judgment dated 2‑6‑1987. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal of the record, we have come to the conclusion that this petition has no meat which deserves dismissal forthwith. The contentions raised before us by the learned counsel are rclaling to the question of facts which have been concluded by the concurrent findings of fact by the learned lower Courts against the petitioners. The learned High Court has also rightly held that the findings of fact against the petitioners were not of such a nature which could be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, failed to bring to our notice violation of any question of law in the concurrent findings of the Courts below which could make out the case of the petitioners liable for examination of this Court. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the petition and refuse leave to appeal. M.A.K./A‑509/S Petition dismissed.