Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Civil Petition No. 134‑R of 1984, decided on 16th October,1985.
(On appeal from judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 14‑3‑1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 484‑R of 1980).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑‑Contention before High Court, for remanding case for further enquiry /demarcation of property in dispute, rejected on ground that such a course would tantamount to frivolous protracted litigation between parties and waste of public time‑ Finding of High Court, held, was open to no objection‑‑Question raised in petition being one of a and no question of law worth consideration arising in matter, leave refused.
Moulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th October, 1985.
‑Leave is sought in this petition from the judgment of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, dated 14‑3‑1984, whereby a Constitutional Petition of the petitioner challenging the orders, dated 29‑11‑1979 and 30‑7‑1979 of the Administrator (Residual Property) Rawalpindi and the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) Rawalpindi transferring a plot measuring 17 Marlas and 3 Sarsais under the reconstituted Settlement Scheme No. 8 was dismissed.
2. In the petition before the High Court the findings of the Settlement Authorities were challenged on the ground of misreading of evidence and facts. After examining the petitioner's case at length, the learned High Court came to the conclusion that no case of any misreading or legal infirmity was made out so as to warrant any interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment further goes to show that finally it was prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the case may be remanded for a further inquiry /demarcation of the property in dispute. This prayer prima facie revealed weakness inj petitioner's case and was turned down by the learned High Court, and rightly so, on the ground that such a course would tantamount to frivolous protracted litigation between the parties and waste of public time.
3. We heard the learned counsel in the matter and are not persuaded to disagree with the findings of the learned High Court. The questions raised in this petition are one of fact and no question of law worth consideration arises in the matter. The petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.
M.Y.H. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer