1970 PLP 465 (SCMR)
THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR-Petitioner Versus IMAM BAKHSH-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 465 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR-Petitioner Versus IMAM BAKHSH-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 465 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 465 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 465 (SCMR) (THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR-Petitioner Versus IMAM BAKHSH-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Wahid Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 9th January 1970.
- Wahid Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi, dated the 25th November 1968, in Civil II Appeal No. 254 of 1968).
S. 100-Second appeal Concurrent finding of fact, as regards age, by Courts below High Court, held, rightly declined to interfere with such finding in second appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below that the correct date of birth of the respondent was 25th of May 1916 and not the 25th May 1905 as entered in his service book. On that finding the retirement of the petitioner with effect from 24th May 1965 from the post of salt inspector in the industries Department of the Government of west Pakistan was wrongful him from service was illegal and void was therefore rightly decreed. In seeking leave to appeal from the order of the High Court affirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge on appeal, Mr. Wahid Farooqi contended that no proper finding was recorded by the trial Court on the issue of the age of the respondent. He meant that the finding was based on the opinion of the Doctors which was not conclusive of the issue. There is little substance in the plea raised. One of the doctors who examined the respondent for determining his age appeared as a witness and gave reasons in support of his opinion. The respondent too appeared as his own witness and affirmed that his date of birth was 25th May 1916. The Medical Board who examined the respondent in connection with the inquiry under the Further Usefulness in Public Service Rules, 1963, also determined his age as 25th May 1916. No evidence was examined by the Government in rebuttal. The High Court in the circumstances was right in declining to interfere in a second appeal under section 100, C. P. C., with the finding of fact recorded by the first Court of appeal on the question of age. No ground for grant of special leave to appeal is thus made to appear. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.