1988 PLP 758 (SCMR)
ABDUL RAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 758 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hassain Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 758 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 758 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hassain Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 758 (SCMR) (ABDUL RAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sayeed A. Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 26‑5‑1987 of the High Court of Sind Karachi in IInd Appeal No.104 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Concurrent finding of fact‑‑Interference with‑‑Concurrent finding of fact by three Courts‑ No misreading or non‑reading of evidence found‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Both the petitioner and the respondent claim that they are the owners of the plot in dispute. According to the petitioner, this plot was purchased by him from one G.H. Brohi, hence he is its owner while according to the respondent it was auctioned in his favour by the Settlement Department and purchased by him in open public auction, therefore he is its transferee. The question involved is a pure question of fact. The Courts below, after perusing the evidence produced by the parties, found that the respondent's assertion that the plot in question was an evacuee property and had been auctioned in his favour by the Settlement Department and that, therefore, he was its transferee, was correct. This finding of fact, which has concurrently been recorded by all the three Courts below, cannot be interfered with by us in these proceedings, especially as it has not been shown to us that there has been any misreading or non‑reading of any relevant evidence by the said Courts. Dismissed. M.I . /A‑178/S Petition dismissed.