1990 PLP 644 (SCMR)
Sh. ABDUL QADEER‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 644 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid lqbal and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. ABDUL QADEER‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 644 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 644 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid lqbal and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 644 (SCMR) (Sh. ABDUL QADEER‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20th September, 1988 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.1591‑D of 1988). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Disputed questions of fact concluded by concurrent findings of fact by Courts below‑‑‑Nothing had been shown so as to establish that the appraisal of the material before the lower Courts suffered from any error of law or principle‑‑‑On the contrary technical objections regarding procedural aspects of the case had been raised which were not given much importance by the High Court and rightly so; firstly, because they were not significant, and secondly, because no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner and substantial justice nevertheless, had been done‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Disputed questions of fact concluded by concurrent findings of fact by Courts below‑‑‑Nothing had been shown so as to establish that the appraisal of the material before the lower Courts suffered from any error of law or principle‑‑‑On the contrary technical objections regarding procedural aspects of the case had been raised which were not given much importance by the High Court and rightly so; firstly, because they were not significant, and secondly, because no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner and substantial justice nevertheless, had been done‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A defendant in a family dispute regarding dowry has called in question the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute about dowry was to the effect that while the respondent (wife) claimed that it had been misappropriated by the petitioner (husband), the latter's defence was that he having lived with the parents of the respondent as `Khans Damad' her dowry was shifted to their house and thus he had neither any opportunity to misappropriate the same nor he had done so. It was obviously a case of contradictory pleas on disputed question of fact which has been concluded by concurrent findings of fact by learned Courts below against the petitioner. Nothing has been shown so as to establish that the appraisal of the material before the learned lower Courts suffered from any error of law or principle. On the contrary the technical objections regarding procedural aspects of the case have been raised.‑ They have not been given much importance by the High Court and rightly so; firstly, because they are significant; and secondly, because no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and substantial justice nevertheless has been done. Accordingly finding no force in this petition, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./A‑564/S Leave refused.