1989 PLP 1090 (SCMR)
QAMAR‑UD‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1090 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | QAMAR‑UD‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1090 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1090 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1090 (SCMR) (QAMAR‑UD‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahzad Jehangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑1‑1984 in C.R. No.54 of 1984). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below, not disturbed by High Court in second appeal‑‑Question regarding appreciation of evidence and findings of fact against petitioner being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a gift made by him in respondents' favour, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of his Regular Second Appeal (converted as a Civil Revision). The learned trial Judge gave a finding of fact against the petitioner. His appeal was dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact by the learned two Courts below were not disturbed by the High Court. In these circumstances, after arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel could not pursue it any further on the question regarding appreciation of evidence and findings of fact against the petitioner which are unexceptionable. Leave to appeal is refused. A.A./Q‑22/S Leave to appeal refused.