1989SCMR2018 (PLP)
FATEH MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus SAID RASUL and 7 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR2018 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus SAID RASUL and 7 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR2018 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR2018 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR2018 (PLP) (FATEH MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus SAID RASUL and 7 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Jahangir, Senior Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar instructed by S: Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on- Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 29th March, 1983 in Civil Revisions Nos. 1541‑D/82 & 1542‑D/82). ‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal on grounds that earlier suit filed from plaintiffs side having been dismissed in default for non‑prosecution, fresh institution was not possible on the same cause of action, and that plaintiff's present suit was hit by limitation‑‑Question of fresh institution of suit on the same cause of action having not been raised before High Court could not be pursued before Supreme Court‑‑On the question of limitation petitioner defendant admitted that same stood concluded by findings of fact against him which would not merit interference‑‑Decision on merits against petitioner/defendant was fair and was thus not a fit case for leave to appeal‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by the defendant in suit for possession, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his two Civil Revisions.
2. Respondents side succeeded in a challenge to an alienation by a minor, before the trial Court. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed and his Civil Revisions have also failed.
3. Learned counsel has contended, that the earlier suit filed from the respondents' side, having been dismissed in default for non‑prosecution, fresh institution was not possible on the same cause of action.
4. When pointed out, that this question was not raised before the High Court, the learned counsel could not pursue the matter, any further. On the question of limitation, the second point raised by the learned counsel, he admitted that it stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioner, which in our view, do not merit interference. Otherwise too, the decision on merits against the petitioner is fair and it is not a fit case for leave to appeal; the same accordingly, is refused. AA./F‑123/S Leave refused.