1989 PLP 1679 (SCMR)
JANNAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus WALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1679 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Ullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | JANNAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus WALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1679 (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 1679 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Ullah 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 1679 (SCMR) (JANNAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus WALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hafeez Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16‑5‑1984 in C. R. No. 375/75). ‑‑‑Art.l85(3)‑‑lnheritancc‑‑Leave to appeal granted where prima facie document was misread by the First Appellate Court and the High Court had not appreciated the misreading though the point was noted in the judgment of the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. The dispute relates to the inheritance of Abdul Aziz, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No.
2. While the petitioners' case was that Abdul Aziz had also a son, the case of the respondent collateral was that Abdul Aziz did not leave behind any son. The petitioners have failed on this question before the 1st appellate Court and the High Court. Learned counsel has inter alia contended that some evidence has been misread and the remaining also needs to be re‑examined.
3. The perusal of the record shows that EX.P.1 did support the petitioners' case. Prima facie it was misread by the 1st. appellate Court and the High Court did not appreciate the misreading though the point is noted in the impugned judgment. The points raised in this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted security Rs. 2,
500. Stay to continue meanwhile. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record with direction to the parties, to file all additional necessary documents. M.A.K./J‑49/S Leave granted.