Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KANEEZ FATIMA VS Respondent: ABDUL RASHIDHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal ZullahSh. Abdul Sattar Zahid, Advocate (absent) and SAbid Nawaz, Advocate-on Record,Nemo
1989 S C M R 1118
1989 S C M R 1118
Preset: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, .IJ
Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA ‑‑Petitioner
versus
ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.423 of 1984, decided on 5th September, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 31‑1‑1984 in C. R. No.89 of 1984).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Questions of fact stood concluded by Courts below and they were not such so as to attract either the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the jurisdiction of Supreme Court for interference‑‑Leave refused.
Sh. Abdul Sattar Zahid, Advocate (absent) and SAbid Nawaz, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th September, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a widow in a matter relating to the succession certificate vis‑a‑vis the death and assets of her deceased husband, against the dismissal by the High Court. of her Civil Revision.
The succession certificate was granted in favour of the respondents side regarding bank deposits about Rs.40,000. The petitioner had resisted the claim of the respondents on the ground that the amount in the deposit belonged to her and the same was lying in her husband's Benami account. Her plea was rejected. The learned Civil Judge, however, allowed 1/8th share of the petitioner in accordance with the Sharia law. In appeal, her share was enhanced to 1/4th otherwise the rejection of her plea regarding Benami account was upheld. The learned Judge in the High Court declined to interfere with the findings of the learned two Courts below and accordingly dismissed the Civil Revision.
After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal because the questions of fact stand concluded by the learned Courts below. They are not such so as to attract either the revisronal jurisdiction of the High Court or the jurisdiction of this Court for the grant of leave to appeal. The same accordingly is refused.
M.BA./K‑100/S Leave refused.