1989 PLP 1454 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID BIBI and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1454 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID BIBI and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1454 (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 1454 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1454 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID BIBI and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Abdus Salam, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6th November, 1984 passed by Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.1783/D of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Questions of fact were raised before High Court but after having examined the same, findings of fact by the lower Courts were affirmed by the Court‑‑Petitioner raised before Supreme Court arguments which were not raised before the High Court‑‑Petitioner even on mints had no case‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court. It had arisen out of a suit for possession. The suit of the respondents' side was decreed. The petitioner's appeal and Civil Revision were dismissed. Questions of finding of fact were raised before the High Court but after having examined the same, the findings of fact by the learned lower Courts were affirmed. Learned counsel has, however, contended that the learned trial Court committed error in not framing certain issues; that the Province of Punjab was a necessary party; that the provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands Act were applicable, accordingly Civil Court had no jurisdiction; and lastly, that the High Court has misread the documentary evidence. None of the afore noted arguments were raised before the High Court. A Be that as it may the petitioner has no case on merits. We, accordingly, do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. M.BA./M‑817/S Leave refused.