Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 864 of 1981, decided on 1st September 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑7‑1981, in R. F. A. No. 19 of 1979).
--Art. 185 (2)(d)‑Leave to appeal‑Appeal of petitioner's wife being maintainable as of right for reason of property involved in case being worth over Rs. 50,000, petition for leave to appeal filed by petitioner allowed, petition being directed against common judgment of High Court and property involved being same, important question of law and fact being also involved and such course also being necessary in order to avoid any contradictory decision.
Zakiuddin Paul, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 1st September 1981.
‑Appeal of Mst Feroze Fatima is maintainable as of right as qua her the High Court judgment dated 8‑7‑1981 is of variance and the case involves questions regarding property over fifty thousand. See Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution.
2. In the face of the aforesaid, the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 864 of 1981, filed by her husband Mirza Tasawar Ali Beg which is against the aforesaid (common) judgment of the High Court dated 8‑7‑1981 and pertains to the same property also deserves admission, to avoid any contradictory decision by this Court in these two cases which even otherwise involve important question of Law and fact. Consequently we grant leave to appeal. Security Rs. 2,000.
3. There was a prayer for stay of the execution and implementation of the High Court judgment and decree under appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is already in possession of the property in dispute and he may continue retaining that possession and the petitioner will not make any interference therewith. Similarly he states that status quo may be allowed to him also vis‑a‑vis, the execution and implemen tation of the High Court judgment and decree till the decision of these cases. The arrangement suggested seems to be quite fair and just inasmuch as it is not likely to prejudice any party, and will rather maintain the balance of convenience evenly between them. Order accordingly.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer