1989 PLP 1672 (SCMR)
IRSHAD AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SABIRAN BIBI and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1672 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | IRSHAD AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SABIRAN BIBI and others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1672 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1672 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1672 (SCMR) (IRSHAD AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SABIRAN BIBI and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 20‑12‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 17)8‑D/82). (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 14.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Adverse possession, plea of‑‑Question of adverse possession adequately dealt with and concluded by findings of High Court which were unexceptionable‑‑Petitioners had not sought an issue on question of adverse possession, raised before High Court‑‑Re opening of such question, held, was not justified before Supreme Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Question of limitation which was linked with question of adverse possession was properly dealt with by High Court‑‑Contention regarding non‑reading and misreading of evidence was found to be of no substance‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Contention not raised before High Court during hearing of revision petition‑‑Entertaining of such contention at leave to appeal stage was not justified.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Contention not raised before High Court during hearing of revision petition‑‑Entertaining of such contention at leave to appeal stage was not justified. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sough: by the defendant side in a suit for possession, which was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs' side. The petitioners' appeal and civil revision having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the arguments raised before the High Court with regard to their plea of adverse possession. There is no justification for re‑opening this question which was adequately dealt with and stands concluded by the findings of the High Court which are unexceptionable. The petitioners had not even cared to seek an issue on the question of adverse possession raised before the High Court. Question of limitation, which, as correctly observed by the High Court, was linked with the question of adverse possession in the circumstances of this case. has also been properly dealt with by the High Court. Learned counsel also b raised contention with regard to non‑reading and misreading of evidence, which, after hearing him. we have found to be of no substance. The last contention of the learned counsel relates to the measurements of the property in dispute. It was not urged before the High Court during the IC hearing of the revision petition. There is no justification for entertaining it now at R this stage. There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused. M.A.K./I‑80/S Leave refused.