1991 PLP 1650 (SCMR)
BOLADAR and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1650 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Naimuiddin, JJ |
| Parties | BOLADAR and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1650 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1650 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Naimuiddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1650 (SCMR) (BOLADAR and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Younis Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmad, Advocate-on -Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1989.
- Mian Muhammad Younis Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmad, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondents.
- GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑Mian Muhammad Younis Shah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the High Court did I not advert to the question of jurisdiction nor the evidence produced by the petitioners which conclusively established their right and claim. It is submitted that the documentary evidence being part of the record, the High Court as such was under a legal obligation to examine the same in accordance with law.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 25-4-1989 of the Peshawar High Court, in W.P. 390 of 1982).
Art. 185(3)
Contention of petitioner that High Court by not adverting to question of jurisdiction and by not examining documentary evidence which was part of record, had failed to fulfil its legal obligation being not devoid of force-- Leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑Mian Muhammad Younis Shah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the High Court did I not advert to the question of jurisdiction nor the evidence produced by the petitioners which conclusively established their right and claim. It is submitted that the documentary evidence being part of the record, the High Court as such was under a legal obligation to examine the same in accordance with law.
2. The submission is not devoid of force. Leave is accordingly granted Security Rs.1,
000. The appeal to be prepared on the present record. The parties are permitted to file necessary additional documents if they so wish within a month. This Court's order dated 27‑8‑1989 to continue,
3. The appeal to be set down at an early date. H.B.T./B‑139/S Leave granted.