1986 PLP 1961 (SCMR)
NAEEM-UR-REHMAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL AZIZ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1961 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | NAEEM-UR-REHMAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL AZIZ and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1961 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1961 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1961 (SCMR) (NAEEM-UR-REHMAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL AZIZ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners
- S.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 27‑7‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, whereby petitioner's Civil Revision arising out of respondents' suit for possession of a house, was dismissed. According to the facts given by the learned counsel the respondent‑side claiming to be the owner of the house in dispute sought ejectment of the petitioners there from through an application made before the Rent Controller. The petitioners raised the plea of lack of relationship of landlord and tenant whereupon the respondent withdrew the application and filed a suit for possession based on title. The petitioners pleaded denial of ownership as also their adverse possession. Nevertheless the suit was decreed. The petitioners' appeal and revision having failed, they have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel tried to show that the evidence led before the learned trial Court has not been properly considered by the Courts below. He has relied upon the same material which was noticed by the High Court and was not considered enough to come to a conclusion either that the petitioners have title in the house in dispute or that the title has matured in their favour on account of adverse possession. All the three Courts having considered the material relied upon by the petitioners have rendered concurrent findings of fact against them. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court in the findings of fact. No law point has been urged. This petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. M . I . Petition dismissed