1994SCMR1859 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. TAJAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994SCMR1859 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. TAJAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR1859 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR1859 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR1859 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. TAJAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 15‑3‑1992 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 857/1978). ‑‑‑‑S. 50‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984); Art. 64‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in view of the fact that one part of the statement of plaintiff's witness that deceased had no daughter had been accepted while ignoring the other part of his statement that deceased was his real maternal‑grandfather and view taken of S. 50, Evidence Act, 1872 would appear to be not in conformity with law.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 15‑3‑1992 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 857/1978). ‑‑‑‑S. 50‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984); Art. 64‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in view of the fact that one part of the statement of plaintiff's witness that deceased had no daughter had been accepted while ignoring the other part of his statement that deceased was his real maternal‑grandfather and view taken of S. 50, Evidence Act, 1872 would appear to be not in conformity with law. Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th July, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is granted in view of the fact that one part of the statement of Yaqoob (P.W.1) that Kaley Khan had no daughter has been accepted ignoring the other part of his statement that Kaley Khan was his real maternal‑grandfather. Besides, the view taken of section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Article 64 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984) would appear to be not in conformity with the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1988. A.A./M‑2044/S Leave granted.