Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

CAJETAN PINTO versus SHIRIN


Article 185 (3) grant of appeal, grant of concurrent decisions of the courts below on the question of facts denied by the Supreme Court

1986 S C M R 1967 (1)

Present: Abdul Qadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ

CAJETAN PINTO‑‑Petitioner

versus

Dr. (Mrs.) SHIRIN‑‑Respondent

Civil Petition No. 3‑K of 1985, decided on 22nd January, 1986.

(From the order of the High Court of Sind, dated 29‑11‑1984 passed in F.R.A. 910 of 1984).

Constitution opt Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Concurrent decisions of Courts below on question of fact‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere‑ Leave to appeal refused.

Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1985.

ORDER

M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑

In an ejectment proceeding substituted by the respondent Dr. Mrs. Shirin against one Qazi Azmat Ali the petitioner applied for impleadment on the ground that he was the tenant of the respondent and that he had been regularly paying rent to her. The application was, however, dismissed on 26‑8‑1984 for the reason that he was not a tenant and had otherwise no locus standi to join the proceedings as a necessary party. On 27‑8‑1984, an ejectment order was passed in the case. The petitioner came to the High Court in appeal against both orders but the appeal was dismissed for the reason that there was no cogent or satisfactory evidence to establish that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the premises in question.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel satisfied 'that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent decisions of the Courts below on a question of fact. The petition is dismissed.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
advocate for immigration from Mangi lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.